Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.

Bill committed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing-Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely: —

London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority (No. 2).

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely: —

Metropolitan Water Board Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Great Indian Peninsula Railway Annuities Bill [Lords,]

Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords,] Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTION-FINDING STATIONS.

Brigadier-General WARNER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the number of direction-finding stations now in existence as an aid to navigation round the coast of the British Isles; and whether it is proposed to extend these stations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): There are four direction-finding stations now in operation in the British Isles available to give bearings to ships. These are the Post Office stations at Cullercoats, Flamborough and Niton, and the Admiralty station at Lizard. The Post Office have in hand the fitting of certain other stations with direction-finding apparatus, and if the conditions prove on trial to be satisfactory, these stations will be available to give bearings to ships.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES,

TEXTILE IMPORTS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the large imports of textile goods have driven a number of firms out of business and caused unemployment in the worsted industry; and whether he will now consider the application of safe guarding to this industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider an application by the worsted industry, the operation of the three factors to which they directed attention is being closely watched, but I am not satisfied that the position has changed since the Committee reported in a way which would justify the Government in taking action.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the imports of woollen worsted goods have increased for the first two months of this year over the corresponding period last year by 1,800,000 square yards? Also is be aware that a considerable number of workers formerly employed in the textile industry have gone into other occupations rather than accept unemployment benefit?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I am aware of all the relevant factors, only-some of which have been stated by my hon. Friend. The Government have watched the whole position. There are three things the Committee have to take into account. Those matters are being-watched and have been the subject of a special Report, and it is upon the whole of the information so received that I have given my answer.

Mr. HARRIS: Did not the Committee after a very protracted inquiry recommend that no duty should be put on, and did it not also point out that a duty on imported goods would interfere with the garment manufacturing industry, home and export, and raise the cost of clothes?

Mr. SPEAKER: That was in the Report.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that imported worsted goods represent employment for 60,000 persons during the early period of this year, and would this fact make any difference to the views of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, what the Government are bound to consider is whether the situation has materially changed for the worse since the Committee made its Report, and, after very careful consideration of all the figures and on information obtained from the trade, I am not able to say that is so.

Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what country the goods arc coming?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I can say that at once. It is naturally present to my mind. They originally came from Italy and France. The French importations on the whole have declined and the German importations have increased.

LACE INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures showing the production of lace goods at the present time; the number of persons employed in the lace industry; and the corresponding figures for this date or a near date in 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information furnished by the trade is not sufficiently complete for me to give the particulars which the hon. and gallant Member desires.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it the right hon. Gentleman can give these figures for motor cars, watches and other articles when they are favourable to his policy, but is unable to get them when they are not so favourable?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked that, because, as a matter of fact, I have tried to get results from every single trade which is protected by a duty. I have got some figures which are quite inadequate from the lace trade. I hope they will be able to give the same figures that many other trades have given.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that during the last fortnight hopes have been expressed in Nottingham that the trade has revived to a very great extent?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not have these fiscal debates now.

FABRIC GLOVES.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT (for Mrs. PHILIPSON): 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average c.i.f. value of imported fabric gloves in 1926 per dozen pairs compared with the average c.i.f value in 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The average declared value (c.i.f. British port) of fabric gloves of cotton imported
into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1925, was 13s. 5d. per dozen pairs, and in 1926 12s. 7d. per dozen pairs; and of fabric gloves of other materials, 14s. 1d. per dozen pairs in 1925, and 18s. 6d. in 1926.

Mr. ROY WILSON: In view of the extraordinary success attending these Safeguarding Duties, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing other trades under them?

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the retail price is now higher than before the duties?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not aware of that fact, but that seems to show that the difference in price is conducted by the retailer and not by the manufacturer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR-CARS.

Sir HENRY CROFT: 3.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade what were the net exports of motor-cars and parts from the United Kingdom in 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of motor-cars and parts manufactured in the United Kingdom and exported in the year 1926 was £9,120,000, while the value of the net imports was £5,816,000. Thus the value of the exports exceeded that of the imports by £3,304,000.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not the case that the fears that the duty would decrease the export of motor-cars were not justified?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have given the figures.

Colonel DAY: Does that include all those parts that have come from America and been assembled here?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The answer deals with exports from this country of motor-cars and parts. I do not think there is a trade in imported parts which are afterwards exported. I have no doubt this really represents the production of British factories.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the greater part of these are being
sent to the Dominions, particularly New Zealand and Australia, and the trade is increasing very rapidly?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is true, and the Returns for this year will probably show a still further increase.

Colonel DAY: Is it not also a fact that many of the cars exported from this country are assembled from parts manufactured abroad?

Sir H. CROFT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether prices of motor-cars have increased since the import duties wore re-imposed in 1925; and how car prices now compare with pre-War prices?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The price index compiled by the trade shows that during the first half of 1926 the average prices were for private cars about 6 per cent. less than in 1925 and for commercial cars about 5 per cent. less than in that year. Further reductions have occurred since. Prices generally are now about 10 per cent. below pre-War prices for private cars and are approximately the same as pro-War for commercial cars.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that, owing to the security given to this industry, prices have been lowered all round?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is Question Time, and not Debate.

Mr. SEXTON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that motor manufacturers in Great Britain are claiming and advertising their cars as of British manufacture, while such cars contain 25 per cent. of foreign parts, some fully assembled in foreign countries; and will he take action in these cases under the Merchandise Marks Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of the facts mentioned in the question. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.

FRANCE (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature and extent of the negotiations which took place between his Department and the
French Government during the revision of the French customs tariff; whether he proposes to make further representations to the French Government on the provisions of the Tariff Bill recently submitted to the Customs Commission of the Chamber of Deputies; and, if the Schedules of this Bill undergo no modification in favour of British manufactured exports, whether His Majesty's Government will take appropriate measures to enable British manufacturers to safeguard their interests in their own home market against unfair French competition?

Mr. TAYLOR: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet made any representations to the French Government as to the proposed increase of duties on British oil engines imported into France?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As already stated in this House, I have invited Chambers of Commerce and trade associations to let me have their observations on the proposals in the French Tariff Bill so far as these affect British trade. When they have been received, I will consider what action can usefully be taken by way of representations to the French Government.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What is the application of the maximum tariff under the new scheme? It is not explained in the document issued by the Department.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should hesitate without notice to give a reply upon a document, which covers about 50 pages. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down?

MERCHANDISE MARKS Act.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost of the work of the Board of Trade Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, exclusive of the sum for salaries, wages and allowances shown in the Civil Estimates, Class 6, Vote 1?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is impossible to estimate the cost precisely. Provision has been made under Subhead B of the Vote for any expenses incurred by this and other committees and inquiries.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What is the reason for changing the position, and making this appointment salaried?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is not the question the hon. Member asked. He asked about expenses other than salaries. The reasons for making them salaried were given when the Bill was before the House and were approved by the House.

WATCHES AND CLOCKS (IMPORTS).

Colonel APPLIN: 15 and 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the average c.i.f. value of all the watches imported during the six months ended 30th June, 1925; and the average c.i.f. value during the six months ended 31st December, 1926;
(2) what was the average c.i.f value of all the clocks imported during the six months ended 30th June, 1925; and the average c.i.f. value during the six months ended 31st December, 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will answer these questions together and, as the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of my hon. and gallant Friend, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures promised:


Description.
Average declared value (c.i.f. British port) of the following
descriptions of imports.



Jan.-June, 1926.
July-Dec, 1926.



Each.
Each.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Watches, complete:








With gold cases
1
1
5
1
1
5


With silver cases

8
1

7
9


With cases of other metals

3
3

2
8


Clocks, complete

4
1

3
5

GOLD AND SILVER LEAF (IMPORTS).

Mr. HARRIS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what body or organisation has made application to him for the making of an Order in Council under the Merchandise Marks Act that its provisions should be applied to imported gold and silver leaf; and whether he can state what are the annual imports of this article for the last year for which statistics are available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The application was made by the British Master Gold Beaters' Federation, the Gold Beaters' Trade Society and the Women's Gold Leaf Society. The imports of gold leaf in 1926 amounted approximately to 76,700,000 leaves, valued at £193,000. Silver leaf is not separately distinguished on importation, but the total value of all sorts of metal leaf, other than gold, was less than £5,000.

Mr. HARRIS: Do these organisations represent any important substantial number of people?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. They represent on the part of the employers and the operatives, I am informed, practically the whole trade.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (RUSSIAN IMPORTS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much agricultural machinery was imported into Russia in 1913; and how much came from Britain, Germany, and the United States of America, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of the agricultural machinery and parts, including tractors, imported during 1913 into Russia (excluding Finland) was as follows:



£


From all countries
5,093,000


From the United Kingdom
1,126,000


From Germany
1,758,000


From the United States
979,000

Colonel GRETT0N: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures he has given to 1913 include Poland as part of Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LSTER: Yes, I think they include all Russia at that time, except Finland.

IMPORTED SILK GOODS.

Sir H. CROFT (for Mrs. PHILIPSON): 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the average declared value per square yard of imported silk piece goods in 1926 compared with the average declared value in 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The average declared value (c.i.f. British port) of piece goods, wholly of silk, imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland
in 1925, was 3s. 6d. per square yard, and in 1926 3s. 5d.; and of silk mixed with other materials, if known as "silks,"3s. 6d. in 1925, and 3s. 4d. in 1926.

Sir H. CROFT: Do I understand from that answer that the imports of these silk piece-goods actually decreased in value in spite of the duty and that, therefore, the duty was paid by the foreign importer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The cost since the duty was lower than before the duty was put on.

TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, arising out of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Trusts in 1919 in respect of the recommendation that the Board should keep itself fully informed as to the nature, extent, and development of industrial combinations, and that a Report thereon should be annually submitted to Parliament, whether anything has been done arising out of this recommendation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the Memorandum on Combination in Industry and Trade prepared by the Board of Trade, and published in the Balfour Committees volume, "Factors in Industrial and Commercial Efficiency."

INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BUREAU.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the British subscription to the International Bureau at Berne for the protection of industrial property has this year been reduced, and that to the bureau for the protection of literary and artistic property has been increased; what are the functions of these bureaux; and whether, in view of our financial situation, our contribution to them will be withdrawn?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a rather long one, and my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The estimate of the amount required this year for the British contribution
towards the expenses of the Bureau or the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property has been decreased by £10 to a total of £230, and the corresponding estimate relating to the Bureau of the International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic-Property has been increased by £10 to a total of £230. This expenditure is liable to small fluctuations from year to year, and the estimates are largely based on the amounts actually expended during the previous year. The functions of the bureaux are laid down in Article 13 of the Industrial Property Convention of 1911 (Cd.6805) and Article 22 of the revised Berne Copyright Convention of 1908 (Cd.6324), respectively. The obligation to contribute to the expenses of the bureaux is imposed by these Conventions, and withdrawal of the contributions would involve the withdrawal of this country from the Conventions, which confer valuable rights upon British patentees, trademark owners, authors, etc., in the foreign countries which are members of the respective Unions. I am not prepared to recommend any such withdrawal.

FOOD COUNCIL.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost of the work of the Food Council for 1927–28, exclusive of the sum for salaries, wages, and allowances shown in the Civil Estimates, Class 6, Vote 1?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The estimated cost of the Food Council work for 1927–28, exclusive of salaries, wages and allowances, and also of overhead charges such as rent, rates, stationery, etc., which cannot be definitely calculated, is £200.

COAST EROSION.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to give effect to the undertaking he gave some time ago to a deputation representing a large number of coastal districts to the effect that he would introduce legislation dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that while I expressed the hope that it might be possible to introduce legislation at some future date, I stated plainly that I could give no undertaking as to when this could be done.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the Minister aware that the amenities, and indeed, security of many of our seaside towns are being seriously threatened by the absence of adequate legislation to deal with this matter? Further, is he aware that in my own constituency, which largely depends on its golf courses to attract visitors, three holes have been lost in the last three months owing to the lack of coastal protection?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should indeed be sorry to find that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency had lost any of its well-known attractions, but he knows how far the time of the House is already proportioned.

PUBLIC CONTRACTS (FOREIGN TENDERS).

Mr. HANNON: 6
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Belgian National Committee on Industrial Production recommending that, on the participation of foreign enterprises in public contracts, preference should be given to Belgian tenderers as far as is compatible with the interests of the Belgian Treasury; that, before arriving at a decision in favour of a foreign tender, the Belgian Government should take the advice of a permanent consultative commission on which the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Industry should be represented; that whenever conditions permit a margin of preference should be accorded to Belgian tenders; and if he will take steps to secure that foreign tenders for British public contracts shall be treated in a similar manner?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth on 16th March, 1926, and to the answer which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hallam
Division on 9th November, 1926. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of both those answers. There does not appear to be any occasion for the establishment of a permanent consultative commission.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman commend to the Department the decision at which the Belgian Government arrived?

Mr. McNEILL: I think the hon. Member may be quite assured that that will not be lost sight of.

MIGRATORY BIRDS (LIGHTHOUSE PERCHES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, for the purpose of saving the lives of migratory birds, a certain number of lighthouses have been provided with perches fixed under the lanterns on which the birds can rest; in how many cases this has been done; and whether the experiment has proved successful?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STER: I am informed by Trinity House that, by arrangement with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, specially designed perches have been attached to the towers of the lighthouses at Spurn Point, St. Catherine's, Caskets, South Bishop and Bardsey, and that, from the reports received as to the large number of birds which alight on these perches during the migrating season, there is reason to believe that they have effected their purpose of saving the lives of a number of birds. These perches have been established and are maintained at the expense of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue with the good work until every lighthouse is so provided?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that it does not rest with me to give orders with respect to the lighthouses. That rests with Trinity House. Trinity House are fitting them up. I am informed that Scotland, I regret to say, is more sceptical on this subject.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give orders, will he encourage them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member's question and the answer given to it may have the desired effect.

BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING).

Miss LAWRENCE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men over 18 enlisted in the Army during the past year, and the number rejected on medical grounds?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. Member will find figures for the recruiting year 1925–26 on page 12 of the General Annual Report on the British Army for 1926.

Miss LAWRENCE: Does that answer the latter part of the question?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, I think the answer gives all the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

PROFICIENCY GRANT.

Sir H. CROFT: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now considered the alternative proposals placed before him by the deputation from the Council of Territorial Associations which, while effecting considerable economies, will promote efficiency in the Territorial Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to introduce as from 1st March last a "proficiency grant" for men enlisting or re-engaging on and after that date of 30s. per annum.

The grant will be in two parts and will be payable on the fulfilment of the following general conditions with appropriate variations in the case of certain arms:

(1) 20s. in the case of trained men who do

20 drills and 15 days' camp, or
30 drills and 8 days' camp.

In the case of recruits who do

40 drills and 15 days' camp, or
50 drills and 8 days' camp.

(2)10s. for musketry or its equivalent in arms where there is no musketry qualification.

An Army Order giving full particulars is in course of preparation.

I am satisfied that it is not practicable or desirable to treat drills independently of camp or camp independently of drills, and prefer, therefore, the foregoing scheme to the alternative proposals of the Council of County Territorial Associations.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the relief which will be felt throughout the Territorial Army regarding this decision, may I ask that widespread publicity will be given to this decision?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member and the answer which I have given will ensure that publicity. The action dates back to the 1st March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government propose to introduce legislation dealing with the question of sexual offences against young persons in Scotland; and, if so, when such legislation will be introduced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I propose to await the Report of the Scottish Committee on Young Offenders, which is now sitting, and to consider the two Reports together. I may add that I have already taken action on recommendations of the Committee which did not require legislation.

Mr. SMITH: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the Juvenile Offenders Committee is likely to report, as it is more than a year since it was set up?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot state the actual date, but, I hope, before very long.

CUPAR TOWN COUNCIL (STANDING ORDERS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any protest from a public meeting
of ratepayers in Cupar, Fife, against the action of the local town council in passing new standing orders abolishing the regular statutory meetings of the council for the approval of committee minutes and excluding the Press and the public; whether he has considered these new standing orders; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the recent adoption of new standing orders by the Cupar Town Council under which the business of the council and its committees is to be conducted in future in private; that no statutory meetings of the council are to be held this year except one in July to levy and impose rates and assessments for the year ending 15th May, 1928, and one in September to approve the abstract of accounts and minutes of committees for the year ending 15th May, 1927; that serious allegations have been made in public at ratepayers meetings regarding the reasons for the adoption of the new standing orders and the manner in which the financial business of the Cupar Town Council is transacted; and if he will cause inquiry to be made in order to find if the action of the council is in accordance with the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to answer these questions together. I have received the resolution referred to. I have no jurisdiction in the matter, but I have made inquiries and have received a copy of the new standing orders. These orders provide inter alia for the holding of the statutory meetings of the council and for the admission of representatives of the Press thereto. The delegation of powers to committees is authorised by Section 74 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act,. 1900; and in other respects the standing orders appear to be in conformity with that Act.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the holding of two meetings per annum is not subversive of the whole principle of local government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that it is in conformity with the Act of Parliament, and I have no right to interfere.

Mr. KENNEDY: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself regarding the allegations made as to the conduct of business in this council and the allegations made in my question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiries, and as far as I have made inquiries I think that the action of the town council is within the terms of the Act of Parliament.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT, LANARK.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of small holdings allotted in the County of Lanark since the year 1919 to 1926, the number of persons placed thereon, and the acreage of land involved?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No small holdings have been constituted by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in the County of Lanark during the period specified by the hon. Member. With a view to meeting the claims of suitable applicants in the county schemes of settlement have been proposed but were not found practicable for various reasons, among which I might mention the risk of damage through subsidence caused by mineral workings. The claims of Lanarkshire applicants are being taken into consideration in the selection of holders for settlement on schemes in other districts and 36 of them have been settled on schemes in adjoining counties during the period mentioned in the question.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it not a great reflection from the Secretary of State that no small holdings have been allotted to the County of Lanark for seven years?

Mr. SULLIVAN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the County of Lanark on the 30th April, 1926, and the 30th April, 1921?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. At 26th April, 1926, there were 83,653 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the County of Lanark as compared with 100,876 at 29th April, 1921.

POOR BELIEF, FRASERBURGH.

Mr. STEPHEN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of men in receipt of able-bodied relief from Fraserburgh Parish Council; and the scale of relief for a man, and his wife, and for each child?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that there are 70 able-bodied men at present in receipt of relief from the parish council. The parish council have adopted no fixed scale of relief for such applicants, each case being considered on its merits by the relief committee of the council.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great discontent with regard to the amount that is being paid to the able-bodied unemployed in Fraserburgh, that the parish council have refused to meet a deputation representing these people, and will the Secretary of State see that enough to provide for these people is given?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the latter part of the question is incorrect and that a deputation is being received. The Board of Health have received complaints and they are making inquiries into the matter.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge in regard to the reception of the deputation recent? I have in my possession a copy of a letter from the parish council refusing to receive a deputation.

Sir J. GILMOUR: My information is quite recent, and I understand that full inquiries are being made.

AGRICULTURE, KINCARDINESHIRE (CHILD WORKERS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached with regard to the proposal of the Kincardineshire Education Authority to reduce the age to 10 years at which school children may be employed in seasonal occupations, such as potato lifting?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can add nothing at present to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 2nd March. I am awaiting a reply from the education authority to my last communication.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the authority in Kincardineshire are not proposing to place their Regulations before him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, but I understand a meeting is to take place at the end of this month, or the beginning of next, and I expect to receive an answer from them after that date.

STEEL HOUSES, DUNDEE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the causes of complaint regarding the grates in the Weir steel houses at Dundee have not yet been removed; that, in one case, the grate has been taken out four times, packed twice, parts chipped from the chimney, the chimney head raised by two blocks, six different types of cans tried, a concrete pad inserted beneath the fire, and parts taken from another grate and attached as a make shift, all without avail; and that the room is now uninhabitable and the tenant put to considerable expense; and what steps, if any, he is taking to remove these complaints?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I am advised that there now remains only one case in which it is not certain that the cause of complaint regarding the grates in the Weir steel houses at Dundee has yet been removed. As regards the statements made in the question as to a particular case, I am informed that these are not strictly accurate of any instance in the knowledge of the Housing Company, but that the living-room grate in one house has given dissatisfaction to the tenant and trouble to the contractors. As I have already indicated, it is not yet certain that the remedial efforts made have been successful in remedying the cause of the complaint, but the matter will continue to engage the attention of the Housing Company.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I can supply the Under-Secretary of State with full particulars of this case, will he undertake to have the question fully examined?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, undoubtedly.

COALFIELDS (PARISH RELIEF).

Mr. JAMES BROWN (for Mr. MARDY JONES): 37.
asked the Under-Sec-
retary of State for Scotland what was the scale of parish relief in force for the week ending 26th February, 1927, in each parish council area situated wholly or mainly in each coalfield in Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: The information desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by calling on over 100 parish councils to make a special return. In any event, the scales of relief in operation in many parishes are subject to so many qualifications, according to the practice of the particular parish council, that such a return would be misleading.

MINES DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY STAFF).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines what are the functions of the 56 members of the staff of his Department described in his Estimates as temporary, in view of the fact that their grades vary from technical adviser to charwomen; and how soon will the services of all temporary staff cease?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: More than half of these are messengers and charwomen who are classed as temporary, not because the work that they are doing is temporary, but because they are not established employes. The temporary staff of the Department doing temporary work falls into two classes. Seven are engaged in compiling a new catalogue of plans of abandoned mines, a task of the greatest importance to the safety of the miners, which I hope will be completed within the coming financial year. Their services will then no longer be required. Thirteen are still engaged on liquidation work arising out of the financial control of the coal industry; their numbers are gradually reduced as the work approaches completion, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to dispense with all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

OUTPUT (FIFE).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines the tonnage monthly output of coal in the county of Fife during January and February, 1926, and January and February, 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The quantity of coal raised in Fifeshire in January, 1926, was 617,600 tons, and in February, 1926, 638,400 tons. The corresponding figures for January and February, 1927, were 552,000 tons and 602,600 tons, respectively.

MINERS EMPLOYED (FIFE).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 44.
asked the -Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in and about coal mines in the county of Fife at the end of April, 1026, and at the end of February of this year, respectively, with the number of persons formerly employed at pits that may have ceased working in the county during the period from 1st May, 1926, to the end of February, 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The. number of wage-earners employed in and about coal mines in Fifeshire was 26,431 at the end of April, 1926, and 21,374 at the end of February, 1927. 906 men were formerly employed at pits in the county which have closed since 1st May, 1926, and 63 men are at present employed at pits which have opened or re-opened since that date.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING ORDERS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir PAKE GOFF:

45. To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the notice of amendments to certain Standing Orders standing on the Notice Paper of the House in the name of the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division; and will the House be afforded an opportunity of discussing them?

Sir P. GOFF: I have been asked to postpone this question until Thursday, but I have to inform the Prime Minister that I have obtained 327 signatures.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLANESBURGH REPORT).

Mr. STEPHEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government has yet come to a decision with regard to the proposals of the Blanesburgh Unemployment Insurance Committee?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I must request the hon. Member to await the proposals to be made in the Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the Unemployment Insurance Bill will be introduced?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to give the date.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will it be introduced before Easter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think that is unlikely.

Mr. STEPHEN: This Session?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask whether the Government are satisfied with the actuarial calculations on which this projected Bill will be based?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Bill, when introduced, will be on a financial basis with which the Government are satisfied.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Member say whether the Government propose to hold any conference with the representatives of necessitous areas in regard to this Bill?

Mr. BETTERTON: I must ask the hon. Member to put that question on the Paper: I am unable to give an answer on that point at the moment.

PETROL TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his statement in the Budget of last year, he can give, approximately, the amounts that would be brought in by a 4d. and a 6d. tax per gallon on petrol?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The estimates asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend could not be framed except on the basis of a number of assumptions as to the possible scope of a duty upon motor spirit, which must vary widely according to the particular point of view. In these circumstances I regret that I am unable to supply the information.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-RURY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on the last Budget say that he would look into the matter, and does not this mean that he has not looked into it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the contrary, I have been looking into it continually, and not at all by my own unaided eyesight, but with the assistance of many competent experts. Nevertheless, I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject this afternoon.

WAR RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount that has been received by this country from Allied countries in repayment of War Debts up to the present; and what amounts have been paid to the United States over the sam: 48.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This country has received up to the present approximately £10,000,000 from Allied Governments in respect of War Debts and has paid approximately £135,500,000 to the United States Government.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, in the future, we ever get an excess of receipts over payments, this £120,000,000 will be allowed to be counted under the Balfour Declaration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, that is specifically stipulated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the total amount received from reparations? It would be very interesting.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not without notice.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet obtained the correct version of the statement with regard to Inter-Allied Debts, made recently by the Secretary to the United States Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I have just received the full text of Mr. Mellon's letter to the President of Princeton University and am at present engaged in considering it.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: May I ask whether the statement made by the Secretary to the United States Treasury is correct, that we are already receiving more from Germany than we are paying out to the United States?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think probably it would be better if I circulated the actual text of the letter.

LITHUANIA (LOAN).

Mr. TAYLOR: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that, in accordance with the statement in Command Paper, No. 121, of 1924, a loan of £1,000,000 for the Lithuanian Government was guaranteed by the Government, he can say why this proposal has not been taken advantage of by the Lithuanian Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The guarantee which the Treasury expressed its willingness to give was intended to cover the expenditure in this country in connection with a scheme for the construction of certain railways in Lithuania. The Lithuanian Government decided not to proceed with the original scheme and their alternative proposals were not satisfactory to the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee. Accordingly the question of a guarantee dropped. In any case it would not have been possible for the guarantee to have been given until the Lithuanian Government had settled their outstanding debt of approximately £300,000 for supplies sent by this country to Lithuania.

BRITISH MUSEUM (LIGHTING).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has inquired the views of the trustees of the British Museum as to the measures which would be necessary to light the Museum on Sundays in case of fog; whether he has had any estimate made of the cost which would be required to effect the change; and whether he is prepared now to reconsider the possibility of making the necessary arrangements?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to all three parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. TREVELYAN: May I ask whether it is not desirable to consult the trustees in a matter like this?

Mr. McNEILL: I think not.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask whether the trustees are not, as a matter of fact, very much interested in this, and would like very much to be consulted in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say whether they are interested or not, but there is no reason why they should not communicate their interest, if they wish to do so.

Mr. MacDONALD: But are not the trustees a semi-public body charged with great responsibilities, like the Government?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, and it is for that very reason that I leave them to do their own business.

MOTOR DRIVERS (EYESIGHT TESTS).

Colonel DAY: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that there are approximately 15,000,000 people in Great Britain who suffer with imperfect vision; and, in view of this fact, will he consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory that all applicants for a motor-driving licence should pass a special eyesight examination either by their own medical practitioner or competent optician which shall include tests for distance and colour vision, and produce a satisfactory certificate to the-licensing authority before a driving licence is issued?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The draft Road Traffic Bill which has recently been published contains provisions for the withholding of a driver's licence from a person suffering from any physical disability (including defective vision) which is likely to cause the driving: of a motor vehicle by him to be dangerous to the public. The draft Bill also provides that in certain circumstances such a person may claim to be subjected to a test as to his fitness or ability to drive a motor vehicle.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the ques-
tion with regard to the person supplying a medical certificate saying that the eyesight is all right?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not answer without going into great detail. If the hon. Member will read the draft of the Bill, I think he will get all the information he wants.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a resolution, unanimously passed at a recent meeting by the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, protesting against any further inroads by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Road Fund and stating that the remaining funds are already insufficient to meet the reasonable requirements of the highway authorities; and whether he is communicating with the county council on the subject?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The resolution and the points raised in the covering letter shall have my careful consideration.

Lieut-Commander KENW0RTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman replying to the county council, as I ask in the last part of the question?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will inquire whether we are sending anything more than a formal acknowledgment.

Mr. LUNN: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the liabilities of the Road Fund exceeded the balance by £10,700,000 on 31st March, 1926, and that the outstanding liabilities of the Unemployment Grants Committee will involve a further charge on the fund of £800,000 per annum for the next few years; and whether or not he has any proposal to make to enable road authorities to maintain and improve the roads in order to cope with the growth of heavy motor traffic other than by additional burdens on local rates?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the position of the Road Fund, but the very substantial assistance given to the local authorities from that Fund has not been diminished and continues to be
accorded on a scale which, I hope, will be found to meet the needs of the situation.

MANCHESTER, SALFORD AND ECCLES AREAS (CONGESTION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations concerning traffic congestion between Trafford Park, Manchester, and the Eccles and Salford areas, complaining that a large number of workpeople travelling to and from their employment are held up unduly, and suggesting that either a passenger way should be added to Trafford Bridge, a high level footbridge erected over the Ship Canal, or a tunnel constructed underneath; whether he has given consideration to those representations, and what decision, if any, has been reached?

Colonel ASHLEY: A letter embodying these suggestions reached me a short time ago, and as soon as I have had time to inquire into the matter I will communicate with the hon. Member. I would, however, remind him that the initiation of improvements of the character indicated rests primarily with the local authorities and public bodies concerned.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated that some local authorities have already moved in the matter, and cannot secure the help of other local authorities? Will the Minister of Transport help to get all the local authorities concerned to come together?

Colonel ASHLEY: I was not aware that the movement had gone so far as that, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

DAVENTRY PROGRAMME (TRANSMISSION).

Colonel DAY: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the licence fee paid by owners of wireless crystal sets is the same fee as that paid by owners of wireless valve sets, and that the London transmitting station 2 LO shuts down some nights at 11 p.m., he can arrange for the programme sent out from Daventry after this hour, and which is only available to valve-set owners, to
be relaid from the London station so as to give owners of crystal sets the same benefits as owners of valve sets?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): This is a matter within the discretion of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I understand that at times when Daventry is working and London is not most persons using crystal sets in London or other places within a radius of 100 miles of Daventry can receive the Daventry programmes with little alteration of their sets.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the crystal set used with ear phones cannot receive the Daventry station, and will he consider a reduction of the licence?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware of that fact at all. It is only a matter of putting in a coil, which cost a little over a shilling.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (REVENUE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General why it is that the British Broadcasting Corporation is to receive £50,000 in revenue less this year than last year; and how many wireless-listening licences are in force this year as compared to last year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The amount paid to the British Broadcasting Company last year covered not only the revenue for the service but also the sum required for the repayment of the company's share capital and the expense of winding up the company. The revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation during the financial year 1927–28 will be substantially greater than the revenue of the company for the conduct of the service during the year 1926. The number of licences in 'force on the 28th February, 1926, was about 1,906,000 and the number in force on the 28th February, 1927, was about 2,235,000 in addition to about 4,400 free licences for blind persons.

REGIONAL SCHEME.

Colonel DAY: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General when the regional scheme for broadcasting on higher wave-lengths will be completed so that listeners will be able to obtain alternative programmes on higher wave-lengths from the Daventry Broadcasting Station?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation inform me that they propose to carry out experiment at Daventry at an early date, and when these have been completed they may be in a position to submit proposals for the establishment of regional high-power stations?

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what wave lengths these experiments will be carried out?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not know that it is definitely settled, but the idea is to have two wave lengths, one of 1,600 and another of 400.

STATION 2 H.D. (LICENCE).

Sir JOSEPH NALL: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the conditions imposed upon the amateur transmitter's licence issued to 2 H.D. are imposed upon all such licences; and, if not, how many amateur licences with wider latitude have been issued?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The original licence for this station was subject to the same general conditions as are imposed on all other amateur transmitting stations; but, as stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question of the 24th March, it was found necessary, on account of irregularities, to withdraw the original licence and to issue a fresh one with revised conditions. About 1,250 amateur stations are licensed to undertake wireless transmission for experimental purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE (DlLHORNE, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. LAMB: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision not to supply the district of Dilhorne, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, with a public telephone call office except under a guarantee of £18 a year, seeing that such guarantees are the main deterrent to the development of the use of telephones in this country, especially in rural areas?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The receipts from a telephone call office at Dilhorne are not expected to cover the charges. In these circumstances a guarantee cannot be dispensed with, but on going into details I find that the amount quoted can be reduced, and I am
arranging for revised terms to be communicated to the persons interested. The guarantee system, far from being a deterrent to the development of telephones, is, in practice, the only means whereby call offices are being established in a number of places where the use made of the facilities is so small that their provision out of public funds could not be justified,

NORTHERN IRELAND MAILS.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: 61
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether the substitution of the Holyhead-Kingstown route for the Stranraer-Larne route for the conveyance of mails to Northern Ireland will entail any extra charge on the Treasury; and, if so, what is the estimated amount;
(2) when the new postal service to Northern Ireland via Holyhead and Kingstown will commence; and what will be the saving in time in adopting the new route;
(3) what is the practical difficulty in the way of improving the mail service to Northern Ireland via Stranraer?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the alteration of the London-Northern Ireland mail service from the Stranraer-Larne route to the Holyhead-Kingstown route will give an acceleration in the scheduled times of arrival at Belfast, and, if so, to what extent; and what are the practical difficulties which prevent or render impracticable the acceleration of the Stranraer-Larne route service?

Captain STREATFEILD: 70
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he can state the nature of the practical difficulties in the way of accelerating the Northern Ireland mail service via Stranraer;
(2) if he can indicate the date upon which the alteration of the Northern Ireland mail service from the Stranraer route to the Holyhead route is to take place;
(3) how much earlier mails will be delivered in Northern Ireland if the route is altered from Stranraer-Larne to Holyhead-Kingstown; and what is the anticipated saving in time of transit and financial expenditure?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will answer these questions together. The Holyhead route is being reverted to at
the request of the Government of Northern Ireland, as they found after a complete investigation of the matter with the railway company that the requisite acceleration of the Stranraer route was not practicable without heavy capital expenditure by the company upon reconstruction of the track. The change will probably take place in about a fortnight from now. The mails will be due in Belfast 20 minutes earlier than at present, assuming a punctual arrival by both routes. In the reverse direction, the correspondence will be despatched about an hour earlier but will fall into the first delivery in Central London instead of the second. As the mails for the greater part of Ulster are at present, and have always been, conveyed by the Holyhead-Kingstown route, 1 do not anticipate that the addition of the mails to and from Belfast and the surrounding district will have any appreciable effect on expenditure. The Post Office revenue will not be affected by the change.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that some mails, anyhow, will still pass from Stranraer to Lame from the North of Scotland, and that therefore the passenger service is not likely to be interfered with?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not quite say how the revisions will be effected, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend may take it as certain that mails from the North-East of England will continue to pass by the Stranraer and Larne route, and mails from Scotland mostly, as at present, will pass by Ardrossan.

Sir R. LYNN: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Post Office have to pay way-leave to the Free State Government for carrying the mails through the Free State on their way to Northern Ireland; and, further, will he say whether these mails from and to Northern Ireland will be handled by British or Free State officials?

Captain STREATFEILD: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the passenger service at present running between Stranraer and Larne will be affected?

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Postmaster-General considered the establishment of
an air service here? He seems to have a fine chance of experiment in this case.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will this cause a delay to the mails to Southern Ireland?

Mr. GREENE: May I ask whether there is such a place as Kingstown?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As regards the question put by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn), I think I should ask him to give me notice of any question as to arrangements about way-leaves or as to how mails will be handled. As regards the question of an air service between England and Northern Ireland, that has been considered some time since, but as things are at present we certainly would not be able to undertake a large part of the traffic. As regards the passenger service, this is not a matter within the cognisance of the Post Office, but I have no reason to believe that any alteration will be made.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, but for quite unnecessary delays at Carlisle, much more than 20 minutes could be saved in the transfer of London and Belfast mails, and will he not make a further attempt-to see that this unnecessary delay is done away with?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All these inquiries have been already made by the. Government of Northern Ireland from the railway company. They have discussed the matter exhaustively with the railway company, and it is at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland that the old arrangement of Kingstown and Holyhead has been reverted to.

Sir R. LYNN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions ought to be put on the Paper.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Mr. AMMON: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to advertise the cash-on-delivery service by means of a cancel ling-stamp on letters, similar to that used to advertise the telephone system, as a means to promote increase of business and revenue to the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. It is not the function of the Post Office to urge the public to use one facility in preference to other means of purchase and remittance.

Mr. AMMON: Will not the Postmaster-General do his utmost to make his own Service a success?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no reason to think that it is otherwise than a success.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not possible to attract very much larger business if he makes it more widely known?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that is the question.

Mr. AMMON: 68 and 69.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will consider extending the cash-on-delivery service for inclusion within the letter post?
(2) the amount of business done through the cash-on-delivery service since its inception; whether it has covered expenditure; and whether it is possible to state the class of goods or business mostly covered by the service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am giving close consideration to the question of extending the system to the letter post. Since the inception of the service up to the middle of this month, just over a million cash-on-delivery parcels have been posted. The revenue has slightly exceeded the expenditure. The service is believed to have been used chiefly for the transmission of motor parts, drapery, wireless parts and stationery.

Mr. AMMON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that indicates that if he advertised the service still further it would be used in connection with smallholders and others?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: The Post Office has no desire to make money out of this service. It is only a question of providing facilities for the public.

Mr. AMMON: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman doing his utmost to provide facilities for the public by not bringing it to the public notice as much as he might?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the public are well aware of it by this time.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the bulk of the articles referred to-are advertised in the journals previously mentioned?

NEWSPAPERS (REGISTRATION).

Dr. SALTER: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the conditions of registration of a newspaper at the General Post Office for transmission at inland newspaper rates do not fix the percentage of advertising matter that a registered newspaper may contain; whether any percentage is enforced in practice; and, if not, whether a paper consisting wholly of advertisements can. be registered as a newspaper?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The. answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. In practice, the conditions laid down in Section 20 of the Post Office Act, 1908, for the registration of a publication for transmission at the inland newspaper rate are not considered to be complied with unless it contains a proportion of news or similar matter amounting to at least one-third of its total contents, thus allowing up to two-thirds for advertisements, etc.

Dr. SALTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in this-publication which I hold in my hand, the "Motor," although it is duly registered as a newspaper, there are only 45 pages which could be passed as news out of 196; and, therefore, on his own showing it does not comply with the regulations?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware of those facts, but as the hon. Member has drawn my attention to it I will inquire into the matter.

Dr. SALTER: Is he aware that a. similar state of things relates to the paper called "Punch "?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. FENBY: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total area of land held by local authorities in England and Wales. for allotments at 31st December, 1920, and at 31st December, 1925, respectively:
and what proportion of the total area at 31st December, 1925, had been purchased by local authorities?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The total area of land held by local authorities in England and Wales for allotments at 31st December, 1920, and 31st December, 1925, respectively, as returned by those authorities, was as follows:—
1920–65,474 acres returned by 11,462 authorities.
1925–66,140 acres returned by 12,759 authorities.
I should explain that the area for 1920 includes the temporary allotments provided under Regulation 2L of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Of the total area at 31st December, 1925, 19,626 acres, or approximately 30 per cent., had been purchased by local authorities.

MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to stimulate the consumption of milk as a national food and so encourage dairy farmers in their efforts to make dairy farming a profitable industry?

Mr. GUINNESS: I entirely sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend's desire to stimulate the consumption of milk, and with that object the Ministry does and will do everything in its power to ensure a thoroughly clean and wholesome supply. I am not in a position to undertake propaganda among consumers, which is already conducted by the National Milk Publicity Council, a body formed expressly for the purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the small demand for milk at present as a food, very few farmers, particularly Scottish farmers, can afford to go to the initial expense of clearing their herds of tubercle, so as to provide Grade A, tubercle-free milk, and furthermore—

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be rather too long for a Supplementary Question Perhaps the hon. Member will put the first part of it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the small demand for milk as a food, Scottish farmers are financially unable to clear their herds of tubercle, so as to provide the Grade A milk which we desire to see instituted as a national food in this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: As this matter affects Scottish farmers, the question had better be put down for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would not the Minister consider finding some funds from the Empire Marketing Board, or some such source, to develop a national compaign for milk consumption on the lines, say, of the Mustard Club?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down any further questions.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (CASTLE BROMWICH).

Mr. HANNON: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to certain exhibits at the recent British Industries Fair at Castle Bromwich, in the construction of which a large number of parts of foreign manufacture have been used, all such parts being manufactured and obtainable in this country; whether it is permissible to exhibit articles at the British Industries Fair which embody in their structure 34 per cent. of foreign-made component parts; and whether he will give an official definition of British manufactured products eligible for exhibition at the British Industries Fail in future?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to an exhibit in the Birmingham section of the British Industries Fair in the construction of which certain parts of foreign manufacture had been employed. The Regulations governing the Fair require that goods exhibited must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

MOMBASA (TOWN PLANNING).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he
is aware that, at a meeting of the Mombasa District Committee on 2nd November, a letter was read from the acting-colonial secretary, stating that the local government commission agreed with the local authority in recommending the meeting of loan charges for the town planning and improvement scheme out of rates to be levied on site values; and if he can say whether steps have now been taken to make a revaluation for this purpose?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have no knowledge of the letter referred to, and I am not aware whether any steps have been taken as suggested in the question.

NON-ASIATIC RESIDENTS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the 21 residential plots in the lighthouse area of Mombasa, which were advertised for sale at public auction early last year on terms by which only non-Asiatics would be permitted to bid or to live in buildings erected thereon, have yet been sold; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that a definite promise was embodied in the Government White Paper of 1923 that they would no longer approve of a policy of segregation of Asiatics in the Kenya townships, the Government will reconsider the matter with a view to withdrawal of their consent to the above sale?

Mr. AMERY: I can add nothing to the reply returned to the similar question by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) on the 14th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 80.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the undertaking that no established man should be discharged while a hired man of the same trade remains is being departed from?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. I know of no such undertaking.

Sir G. WHELER: 81.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of established men who have been discharged from His Majesty's dockyards for reasons of economy within the last six months or are now under notice of discharge?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The number is two.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will these men retire on full pension or on a reduced pension?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I am entitled to notice of that question. I do not know exactly what their services have been.

H.M.S."EFFINGHAM."

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 82.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that on the last cruise of H.M.S. "Effingham" two deaths occurred, and there was also an epidemic of influenza, ho will make arrangements for the naval ratings of this ship to be sent to the naval camp at Ceylon to recuperate their health, in accordance with customary practice prior to such voyages, before she sets out on her projected cruise to East Africa, for which she is scheduled to sail from Colombo on 26th April?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that this is a matter which can safely be left to the naval authorities on the spot.

AIR ROUTES (ITALY).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can inform the House as to any new air routes being opened out by Italy this summer; and whether they will connect up with the routes from this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I understand that proposals have been made for the following four new air routes in Italy:

(1) Venice-Rome (extension of Vienna-Venice route).
(2) Palermo-Cagliari-Balearie Isles-Barcelona.
(3) Brindisi-Rome.
(4) Rome-Bologna-Munich.
So far as I am aware these routes have not yet progressed beyond the proposal stage, and they do not connect with any air routes from this country.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it a fact that these proposals are to be put into operation next month?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir, they are only on paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we any liaison at all with the Air Service in Italy, with a view to connecting up with our own services in Egypt and India?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not understand exactly what the hon. and gallant Member means by liaison.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we any communication at all with them with a view to joining up with our Indian service?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are continually in communication on the subject.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (AIR ARMAMENTS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what provision is made in the Air Estimates for the representation of this country on air matters on the Permanent Advisory Commission on Armaments of the League of Nations?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is, approximately £1,360 in respect of the pay and allowances of the British air representative.

SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (ELECTORS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the elections to the Shanghai settlement municipal council are on the communal basis, i.e., Europeans and Chinese on separate lists of electors, or on the basis of the common roll of electors?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): There are no Chinese electors in the International Settlement in Shanghai.

ARGENTINE (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the feeling held by British residents in the Argentine and others that the time has now arrived when our Legation at Buenos Aires should be raised to the status of an embassy; and whether he will agree to reconsider this subject further in view of the importance of the Argentine and our close relations with that country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) on 8th of March, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider giving a lead to other nations by doing away with the differentiation; between embassies and legations and adopting some new term such as "envoy," which would do away with the old bitterness and heartburning?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred, he will see that His Majesty's Government are giving the most careful consideration to this question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the British residents in the Argentine are prepared to pay the extra cost?

CHESTER-LE-STREET GUARDIANS.

Mr. BECKETT: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has ever received a request from the superseded guardians of the Chester-le-Street Union for a complete inquiry into their administration; and, if so, what answer he returned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The only request made to my right hon. Friend was by the Chairman of the superseded guardians in the course of a conference on the 19th October last, with a deputation representing the Durham County Federation
of Divisional Labour Parties. My right hon. Friend replied that his experience of the guardians had forced him to the conclusion that he could no longer trust them, and he could see no need to inquire into the propriety of their suspension.

Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that an inquiry was held, from which these men were debarred, does it not appear that the Minister must have changed his mind very quickly?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it the policy of the Ministry of Health, where there are Labour guardians or other Labour public representatives, to hang them first and try thorn afterwards?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir W. DAVISON: I should be glad, Mr. Speaker, to have your guidance on a point of order with regard to questions which interest myself and a number of other Members. I put a question down yesterday in regard to the recent Note of His Majesty's Government to the Russian Soviet Government, and I have been unable to ascertain at the Table why the question which I put in was not in order. I should be glad if you would give guidance to myself and others as to why, seeing that it is now five weeks since this Note was issued, a Member is not entitled to ask the Foreign Secretary whether the warning given in that Note has been—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member apparently proposes to put a question which he handed in yesterday and which was brought to my notice. I am quite unprepared to discuss with Members on the Floor of the House any points of order in connection with their questions. If the hon. Member cares to see me about this particular question, I am quite ready to see him.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we not know if there is any rule why we should not ask whether the warning given to a foreign Government—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: If I were to allow the hon. Member to ask that question, many other Members would claim the same
right of questioning me on the Floor of the House as to why certain questions have been rejected or amended. I cannot allow the hon. Member a privilege which I could not allow to anybody else.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

FOOD PRICES.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the failure of the Government to deal with the high Prices of Food Materials, and move a Resolution.

ELECTION PLEDGES.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of the extent to which the Government have fulfilled their Election Pledges, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE LAND QUESTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the connection between Unemployment and the Land Question, and move a Resolution.

ELECTORAL REFORM.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the results of recent by-elections and the need for Electoral Reform, and move a Resolution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ATTENDANCE.

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render vacant the representation of any constituency which has not been represented? in the House of Commons for a period of twelve months unless special leave of absence has been granted by the House of Commons.
My reasons for bringing this Bill forward are that within very recent times the influence of the House of Commons in this direction has fallen very greatly. Until quite recent Parliamentary times, according to page 180 of "Erskine May," the House of Commons was asked to give leave of absence to any Member who desired to absent himself from our sittings for any prolonged period of time
If the House will allow me to read the paragraph to which I refer, Erskine May says:
In the absence of any specific orders to that effect, Members are presumed to be in attendance upon their service in Parliament. When they desire to remain in the country, they should apply to the House for 'leave of absence'; for which sufficient reasons must be given, such as urgent business, ill-health, illness in their families, or domestic affliction. Upon these and other grounds leave of absence is given, though it has been refused.
As far as I can gather from the history of this House, that Rule began to be slackened about the year 1880, and in 1891 a distinguished predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker Gully, ruled, when the question was raised in this manner by a question in the House, that that law had now fallen into desuetude. I would like to submit to the House that the method by which Members now disfranchise their constituencies for a very long period is very much less preferable than the old and historic method or the House. As I understand it, a Member of Parliament who finds for some reason, good, bad, or indifferent, that he is unable to represent his constituents gets into touch either with the Chief Whip of the Opposition or with the Patronage Secretary and leaves to them the decision as to whether the reasons for disfranchising his constituents are good or bad. I should like to make it clear to the House that, in asking permission to introduce this Bill, I am not in any way reflecting on hon. Members of all parties in the House who occasionally, through illness, which we all regret, are obliged to absent themselves from our deliberations, but it is, I submit, under this present system of leaving the matter entirely for a party arrangement with the Chief Whip, a question which sometimes may be influenced by other reasons, such as electoral reasons, rather than by the interests of constituency representation in this House.
Not long ago we had the unfortunate case of an hon. and gallant Member, whom we all would have liked to have continued with us, who suddenly went away, and who, according to popular rumour which was never dispersed, was never going to return. It was a long time before his own Whips were able to say where he was domiciled and what his
unfortunate constituents were to do during his absence. In that case, of course, in due time—I believe about 14 months after his departure—he applied for a post under the Crown and a by-election took place last year. Now we have a similar case of an hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee), who commanded the respect of all of us, and whom we should like to be here still, but who unfortunately for reasons which I have no doubt were the best and were most proper reasons was obliged to leave us and go to the other side of the world, and there take up his residence. Under this system of a private arrangement with the Patronage Secretary or the Chief Whip of the Opposition, the House of Commons has no information in the matter at all. We do not know, and the Patronage Secretary has been extremely coy in his attitude towards the Press in the matter. So far he has not told us whether the rumour that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has left us for good is true or not. But we do know that there are 200 square miles of England and 35,000 electors who are not represented, and we have the highly improper circumstance of a party candidate making statements to the public Press in the constituency that when you have Conservative Ministers in power I Conservative candidate dealing with them is as good as a Member of Parliament I do not associate myself with that statement. I do not think it is true or correct. I do not think that Ministers in the discharge of their duties consider from which party the application comes. But I do suggest that is an improper kind of suggestion to which the House has laid itself open, and I ask the House to consider this Bill. There is no hardship in the Bill. I know that the House is always ready to extend sympathetic consideration to illness or bereavement or to reasons of that kind for absence, but when no information is given and when nothing is done, though all kinds of suggestions are made against the Government and against the unfortunate gentleman, who through no fault of his own is subjected to this criticism, I do suggest that the House should allow my Bill to be printed in order that we may consider it and restore to the House the powers which it formerly enjoyed and of which it ought
not to be robbed by the Whips or any Government or any party.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Beckett, Mr. MacLaren, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Lunn.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ATTENDANCE BILL,

"to rendesr vacant the representation of any constituency which has not been represented in the House of Commons for a period of twelve months unless special leave of absence has been granted by the House of Commons," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]"

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of
the county borough of Bury with regard to the running of omnibuses; and for other purposes."[Bury Corporation Bill [Lords.]

BURY CORPORATON BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES (NO. 2) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to the exportation of horses," presented by Mr. AMMON; supported by Colonel Applin, Mr Viant, Mr. Broad, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Compton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Albery, Mr. Blundell, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Duff Cooper, Lord Fermoy, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Colonel Sir Arthur Hol-brook, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Dugald Cowan, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Lord Erskine, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Mr. Alfred Kennedy, Mr. Kidd, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. Herbert Williams, and Mr. Womersley.

STANDING COMMITTEE B

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Police (Appeals) Bill): Captain Hacking and Mr. Kelly; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Headlam and Mr. Lunn.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Mr.
William Murdoch Adamson, Captain Ainsworth, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. John Beckett, Captain Brass, Mr. Briant, Sir Alfred Butt, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Cluse, Colonel Crookshank, Dr. Vernon Davies, Sir Harry Foster, Mr. Hall Caine, Mr. Homan, Colonel Horlick, Colonel Howard-Bury, Captain Austin Hudson, Mr. Jacob, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. John, Mr. Kelly, Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Mr. Robert Morrison, Sir Frank Nelson, Major Ropner, Mr. Sandeman, Viscount San-don, Mr. Rennie Smith, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Stamford, Mr. Stephen, Captain Styles, Bear-Admiral Sueter, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Sir Francis Watson. Mr. C. P. Williams, and Mr. Robert Wilson.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 15 Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Cinematograph Films Bill): Colonel Applin, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Captain Cazalet, Sir Burton Chadwick, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Colonel Day, Mr. Harris, Sir Robert Home, Lord Huntingfield, Mr. MacLaren, Sir Frank Meyer, Mr. Smith-Carington, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Herbert Williams and Colonel Wedgwood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Clauses 3 (Prices in respect of billeting,),4 (Amendment of S. 24 of Army Act),5 (Amendment of S. 178 of Army Act), 6 ((Application to Air Force), 7 (Amendment of S. 57A of Army Act,) 8 (Amendment of S 83 of the Army Act), 9 (Amendment of S. 179 of Army Act,), 10 (Amendment of S. 190 of Army Act), 11 (Amendment of S. 39A of Air Force Act), 12 (Amendment of S. 57A of Air Force Act,) and 13 (Amendment of S. 179A of Air Force Act), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Short title.)

Commander BELLARS: I wish on this Clause to raise a point as to whether it would be in order to move to omit the word "Annual". I know it was ruled-a case is given in the Standing Order— on 19th April, 1911, that an Amendment to Clause 2 proposing to make the Act permanent was out of order. But Clause 1 in which the word "Annual" was used had already been passed. I want to know. whether it would be in order to move to omit the word "Annual" from Clause 1. All the Amendments that have hitherto been moved were to make the Act permanent. If I were allowed to move to omit the word "Annual", then, later on, I would move consequential Amendments by which the Act would be passed once in the lifetime of Parliament. That would affirm the general principle that the existence of the Army depended upon the will of Parliament.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment to omit the word "Annual" would have the effect of making the Bill a permanent one—

Commander BELLAIRS: Not necessarily permanent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that he proposes to insert consequential Amendments which will have the effect of making it last for the term of each Parliament. I think both of those Amendments would be inconsistent with the Preamble of the Bill and inconsistent with the Bill as it passed the House on Second Beading, which was to make it annual; and that consequently they would be out of order.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act and, Air Force Act to be in force for specified times.)

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out the words "the Channel Islands".
I move this Amendment in order to draw attention to the administration of the Army in the Channel Islands and to ask the Secretary of State for War one or two questions on that administration. I gather that, in addition to a garrison of Regulars, quite rightly arranged for by this Government, there is a Service which is raised exclusively by the authorities in the Channel Islands themselves, and that that Service differs from the Service throughout the rest of the country and, indeed, throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the Secretary of State for War would be responsible for the force raised in Jersey. That does not come under the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Mr. SMITH: I thought, probably you might rule that I was out of order, but may I put it to you that, for the maintenance of this Service, there is a sum amounting, approximately, to about £20,000 provided by this House of Commons. I, therefore, thought that it would be perfectly within the competence of this discussion to raise the point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That particular question would be better raised on the Estimates than on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that it is entirely out of order? I would point out that it had been my intention to raise it on the Estimates, but a suitable occasion did not offer itself.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member must wait until a suitable occasion does arise on the Estimates.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask a question? I want to be quite clear. In paragraph (a) of Clause 2 there is a reference to certain phrases such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Has the Isle of Man, which has a Legislature of its own, the power to express itself on this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill 3 Does it come before that particular House for discussion, sanction, approval, or opinion of any kind, or is it just a matter that we in this House decide, and they are compelled to accept what we decide without any reference at all to them? I ask,
because there is no representation of that particular place in this House. I would like the Secretary of State to say whether or not this is passed without any regard to the opinion of the people in that island?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): That question is put under a misapprehension, as, indeed, the previous attempt to discuss the Militia of the Channel Islands was made. We are dealing to-day only with British troops, the money for which is voted by this House, and the numbers of which are settled by this House. This Estimate only refers to those troops stationed in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, and the answer to the last question is that it is this House which determines the matter, and no other House.

Mr. KELLY: Do I understand that we have troops stationed in the lsle of Man.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure what troops there are at this moment in the Isle of Man, but at any moment we might have troops there.

Mr. LAWSON: It is said that in the Channel Islands there is something like compulsory military service. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill does not apply to any of these people whose service violates the very principle we have in this Bill?

4.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: it does not apply so far as any enactment of this House is concerned. They are free to apply it as a local Ordinance.

Mr. LAWSON: I submit that if this Bill lays down Regulations for discipline and general conduct, and the forces in the Channel Islands are compelled to serve under conditions which this Bill does not contemplate they should serve under, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) ought to have the right to discuss this question in its wider application.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is quite clear that this Bill refers merely to British troops raised and paid in accordance with the decisions of this House. There are, in addition, in the
Channel Islands a militia to which this Bill does not in any way apply by any volition of ours, but we cannot prevent local people passing an Ordinance to make a similar Act to this one apply to the troops they raise in the Channel Islands, and that is not open for our discussion.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of death penalty for certain offences.)

For the purpose of abolishing death as a penalty for certain offences the following Amendments shall be made in the Army Act:

(1) In Section four. paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) shall be omitted;
(2) In Section five the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (6):

(7) Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, or uses any moans to compel or induce any governor, commanding officer, or other person shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison, place, post, or guard which it was the duty of such governor or person to defend;
(8) Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy;
(9) Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces or any part thereof;
(10) Misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice;
(3) In Sub-section (1) of Section six the words "if he commits any such offence on active service be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if he commits any such offence not on active service," shall be omitted;
(4) In Section seven, for the word "death," there shall be substituted the words "penal servitude";
1085
(5) Sub-section (1) of Section eight shall be omitted;
(6) In Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words "if he commits such offence on active service, be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment, as is in this Act mentioned, and if he commits such offence not on active service," shall be omitted;
(7) In Sub-section (1) of Section twelve the words "if he committed such offence on active service, or under orders for active service, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and if he committed such offence under any other circumstances," shall be omitted.—[Mr. R. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The general purpose of the Clause is to abolish the death penalty for certain offences—those which involve cowardice and desertion on active service. In modern warfare, as has been pointed out not only from these benches but from every part of the House in previous Debates, it is exceedingly difficult, and indeed almost impossible on many occasions, to draw the line between cowardice and bravery; and we suggest that exactly the same considerations apply to desertion. In order that hon. Members in other parts of the House may not be under any misapprehension, may I emphasise that we do not propose to abolish the death penalty for cases which involve treachery or desertion to the enemy. I wish to make that clear, because sometimes our position is rather misunderstood. That case might be the subject of argument, but we do not propose to argue it this afternoon. In the Debate which took place last year, we were encouraged by the reception which this proposal met with from all parts of the House. Not only were there expressions in favour of it from the Government benches, but several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House came into the lobby and voted with us. I know it will be said by the Secretary of State for War that that this is a hardy annual, and that is true, but it is only by pursuing our aims that we ultimately reach success. We are also encouraged to continue the discussion of this subject because of what happened in the case of Field Punishment No. I, which was discussed in this House for a number of years.
I am sure the Secretary of State does not wish me to recapitulate the arguments which have been used so often on this question, and it is difficult to find anything original to say on the subject, but I think I am right when I say that, after we have finished the presentation of our case, what he will say will be summed up in a single sentence, "Army opinion is against us." The Government say, "It may be all right, but Army opinion is against it; therefore we do not propose to accede to your request." But the statement that Army opinion is against it does not mean that the rank and file are against it. When they say, "Army opinion," they mean the opinion of the Generals, Lieutenant-Generals, Major-Generals and Colonels—those whom some of us used to call "brass hats" when we were in the Army. I think it is perfectly true that those people are against it, and I have no intention of endeavouring to persuade the Committee that any of them are on our side; so far as I know, none of them is on our side.
That may seem to be an unfortunate admission to make from a debating point of view, but the position I am going to take up, speaking for myself, and a great many hon. Members on this side, is that we are not prepared to take the opinions of those who arc commonly referred to as "Army opinion." The reason why we will not do so is that they have been proved to be wrong before, not only on one question, but on a number of questions. Take the question of Field Punishment No. 1, which used to be debated hotly. In 1921, only six years ago, the right hon. Gentleman for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir R. Sanders), who at that time represented the War Office, said Army opinion was against the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1, and reinforced that statement by quoting opinions from Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Robertson and other generals and high people in the Army. He said a Committee had been set up to go into this question, the Army and Air Force Acts Revision Committee, and that this was the Report of the Committee:
The views of officers commanding in various theatres of war were obtained By the Army Council. These strongly support the retention of Field Punishment No. 1…In these circumstances the Committee do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April. 1921; col. 886, Vol. 140.]
Thinking that that evidence was not strong enough, the right hon. Gentleman went on to quote General Macready when when he was Adjutant-General of the Army. He said:
The abolition of field punishment No 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences, and as a result calls for the death penalty would become more frequent.
The evidence which was put before the House was overwhelmingly strong that the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 would bring such a disastrous state of things that when the Division took place in 1921 on a proposal for the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1, 49 voted for it and 106 against. Exactly the same thing happened in 1922. In the following year, between 1922 and 1923, the representative of the Government who is at present Minister of Agriculture and who at that time represented the War Office got up, and after all the evidence of these generals had been quoted giving their overwhelming evidence, and after the Committee set up to consider this question had come to the unanimous opinion that they could not recommend the abolition of Field Punishment No. I, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The position is that: that we believe that field punishment No. 1 is no longer necessary in view of the splendid discipline of the Army, and it is a punishment which, however useful it may have been formerly, may now be abolished.
That was between 1922 and 1923. Last Session we induced seven Members sitting on the other side to vote against this punishment and in view of what happened on that occasion we are encouraged to go on with our educational propaganda. I imagine that this is not a case in regard to which anybody can say, "Army opinion is against it and so are the Generals and Colonels; that is the last word and it does not matter what ordinary Members of the House of Commons think." I do not accept that argument because Generals and Colonels have been proved to be wrong with regard to field punishment and a lot of other things in the past. Many of those old Generals—fireside Generals and arm-chair Colonels—were leaders in the early days of the War in the gospel of hate against Germany and they used to say, "Once a German always a German," and they declared that never again must any Germans come to this
country. I remember when on foreign service reading in the "Continental Daily Mail" about one of them making an astounding speech in which he said:
If any German tried to serve him with a plate of soup in Loudon, he would throw the soup in his face.
Again they are wrong. A few short years have passed, and what has happened? According to a recent circular, we find that some of those fire-eating generals who were then preaching the gospel of hate in regard to the Germans are now boosting the "Come to Britain" movement, and have appointed a special representative to tabulate the reasons given by Germans for not visiting Britain. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) is not here, because I notice that he has a letter in the "Morning Post" this morning. He seems to be a little concerned that there are so few Germans coming here and he wants us to do all we can to get them over here. Perhaps one of the reasons why more Germans are not showing signs of coming here is because they think that we have still some feelings of enmity against them, and they have to get that out of their minds. They may also think that our Sunday is not lively enough for them, because I notice that the hon. Member for Macclesfield wrote to them assuring them that they can have quite a lively time here on Sundays. I find that some of these people whose opinion we were told to take on this matter as if it were the last word have not been sufficiently reliable in the past. I suggest to the Committee that under the conditions of modern warfare, when a unit goes into action, it is often a mere chance as to whether a man is going to be decorated for bravery or shot for cowardice. I imagine that on active service a man might very well be a coward in the morning and a hero at night.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give an instance. I do not propose to relate a gruesome story. but I will give one story concerning a battery of Field Artillery which went into an engagement and did very well., and a fortnight afterwards the commanding officer received a notice from headquarters to the effect that the battery-had done so well in action that they had awarded one Military Cross and one Military Medal to this battery. The commanding officer was a somewhat unorthodox type of officer, and instead of
doing what the ordinary type of Army officer would have done, that is, give the Military Medal to the sergeant-major, he called all the men on parade and explained to them exactly what had happened. He said that the battery had done very well in their last engagement, and it was more luck than anything else that they had done so well. He told them that he was going to be recommended for the Military Cross, and one other rank was going to get a Military Medal. He further said that the position was that they had all done their very best. He did not know whom to recommend for the medal and said that he had decided to leave them to settle it among themselves, and supply him with the name for him to send up to headquarters to receive the medal.
The men held a meeting under the chairmanship of the sergeant-major, and after some discussion they came to the conclusion that there was nothing to pick and choose about so far as bravery was concerned, and the best thing to do was to put a lot of numbers in a hat and the lucky one which was drawn out first should be the one to receive the military medal. The man who was lucky enough to have his name drawn out first was the cook. As hon. Members who have been on active-service know, when a fellow is found to be very little use and is what is called "a bit windy," that man invariably gets a job as cook, and that was the reason why this man had been made cook in this case, and he was not a bit of good for anything else. Of course wild horses will not drag this man's name from me, but he is still swanking about the country wearing the Military Medal which he won in a raffle. After all this is a human question, but I want to protect myself by saying that I do not want to suggest that the people referred to representing Army opinion and those whom the Secretary of State for War consults before making a declaration at that Box are incompetent or that they are not competent to give a decision on this matter, but I feel that they have so many important questions to deal with at present that we ought to be careful not to overwork their brain power because they are working very hard. I notice that the "Morning Post" says that they are dealing with a tremendously important question, and I think the Secretary of State for War might relieve them of the strain by allow-
ing the House of Commons to come to a decision on this point. I notice in the "Morning Post" a special article by their military correspondent dealing with the important question of whether the Guards are to be allowed to have rubber pads on their boots. This is what he says:
A year ago I stated exclusively in the 'Morning Post' that Guardsmen of the Brigade of Guards quartered in the London District Command had been given freedom to attach rubber pads to the heels of their boots. This concession established a precedent of military interest and importance, and other Commands have since considered the utility of the rubber heel.
Of course you could not expect them to solve a question like that in a year and quite a number of officers have been devoting a good deal of attention to this question. The same military correspondent writes:
In fact, they say that the turning movements are impeded if the heel is 'cushioned' and that in the 'right-about turn' it occasions delay. These objections, however, are not taken too seriously.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is moving a new Clause in reference to the death penalty and the point he is now dealing with does not seem relevant to that question.

Mr. MORRISON: I was endeavouring to show that in previous years when this question has been raised the right hon. Gentleman has simply got up and said this punishment cannot be abolished because Army opinion is against it, and I have been trying to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Army officers are so busy with such tremendous and far-reaching questions as to whether the soldiers should have rubber heels on their boots or not that perhaps on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would decide this question for himself. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for once to leave these people to their petty little discussions about whether troops are to wear rubber heels and settle this matter by public opinion instead of Army opinion. If the question of Field Punishment No. 1 had been left to be settled by public opinion, it would have been settled years before it was. It was only settled in the end by the pressure of public opinion. The Generals still resisted but finally the War Office saw their way to abolish it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he is prepared to
accept my comparison, will say what harm has been done to the Army by the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1. I have endeavoured to prove that Arm\ opinion was hopelessly wrong on Field Punishment No. 1 and public opinion was right. I have no doubt, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has, if he ever mixes with orderly people apart from Generals and Colonels, that on this matter public opinion is on the side of the abolition of capital punishment for the offences I have detailed.

Mr. THURTLE: The views I hold on this question I have expressed on other occasions and I have nothing particularly hew to say to-day. I am going to allow the case to rest very largely on the arguments which have already been advanced but there are one or two things I want to say. I suppose this death penalty can be fairly described as one of the many brutal by-products of war. War is a very horrible business and leads to very horrible consequences. I am inclined to think there is nothing more horrible in war than the spectacle of one of our own soldiers standing up blindfolded before a firing party of his own comrades, being shot in cold blood because his nerves have failed him. I know this is one of the things the House very naturally does not care to face. It is very unpleasant and very painful and it may be to the credit of the House that it wants to forget that such things ever happen. But I really think it is all to the good that the House should face an issue like this squarely. The more the Members of this place are made to face the ugliness and brutality of war, the less likely they are at any future time to involve the country in another war. We have discussed at great length on previous occasions as to what is cowardice. I believe we have so analysed this psychological problem in the past that we have arrived at a very large measure of agreement in all parts of the House. Many of us are now prepared to say that cowardice, however it is manifested, whether by actual cowardice on the field or by some form of desertion, is a form of nerve failure. Surely, if we have got to that point of agreement, we ought to be able to get a good deal further. There must be common agreement about the way in
which nerve power varies. We know it by our experience in the ordinary affairs of life. We are all subjected to a certain amount of nervous strain. You find in ordinary civilian peacetime life some people cracking under the strain of some personal problem, some financial problem or some business problem. It may be that just excessive study makes certain individuals in our midst crack under the strain and they have a nervous breakdown. We treat them as being weak human beings. We do not attribute it to any fault at all. We apply curative measures to try to heal them.
If we go a step further, bearing in mind that there is this wide diversity of nervous strength amongst human beings, and consider what happens on the battlefield, where the nervous strain is tenfold what it is in civilian life, we are bound to see the possibility of a certain number of troops, through no fault of their own, cracking under that strain, and if that happens it seems to me the House ought to recognise that it is really a monstrous miscarriage of justice, because men do break down under that strain, to treat them in the way they are being treated now and apply the death penalty to them. There are all sorts of people who will support the point of view I am putting forward. There are very distinguished military men, men who have shown great gallantry in the field, who will themselves admit that this question of bravery or cowardice is a very subtle question indeed and that it is very difficult to draw a line between cowardice and, I was going to say, bravery, but I should like to develop the point made by my hon. Friend, that under a different set of circumstances a man may be brave on one occasion and may be a coward on another. As a matter of fact, from my own military experience, if I wished, I could give illustrations of that kind. Anyhow, I want to get this point fixed, that there is a great diversity of nervous strength amongst the troops and there is a tremendous strain upon that nervous strength in the field, and if that is so there is a case for us to reason about it might be said, even in the field of criminology, that people who commit crimes cannot be held to be strictly responsible for them. A man may commit even a murder because of some temperamental or intellectual defect
You might say because of that you are not going to let this man off. If he commits a crime you have to protect society by punishing him I agree. But cowardice in a military sense is not a crime at all. It is a misuse of language to call it a crime. It is weakness pure and simple. There is nothing vicious or criminal about a man who fails in the battlefield. He is not intending or desiring in the least to injure his comrades. When a man became possessed of fear and acted accordingly he was not thinking in the slightest degree of injuring his comrades. When an exhausted soldier, worn out with fatigue and lack of sleep, slept at his, post, he had not the slightest intention of doing anything harmful to his comrades, and it is a misnomer, it is an utterly improper use of language to call this kind of thing a crime.
I believe on this issue military officers are prepared to meet us. They are prepared to concede the abstract injustice of the death penalty in many cases. They are prepared to say that there are cases where the innocent, in the ordinary sense of the word, are made to suffer this penalty, but having said that they go on to urge this. Dreadful though this penalty is, true though it may be that it is applied on occasions to the innocent, it is nevertheless essential for military purposes to retain this weapon for the purpose of maintaining the general discipline of the forces in the field, and even if in the course of maintaining that discipline certain innocent people have to suffer, this sanction is still necessary to us. That, I think, is a fair summary of the War Office position on this matter. It was the report that was given us by the Committee of Inquiry that sat some two or three years ago. I want to make one comment on that first of all. It throws a very lurid light indeed on the kind of ordeal that modern warfare is if the War Office is going to say it is necessary, in order to keep men enduring that ordeal, that they should have the threat of the death penalty hanging over their heads. That is really the legitimate inference we are to draw from the way the War Office insists upon this penalty. The Financial Secretary last year, in trying to rebut this point, said British troops did not need any stiffening of this kind.
Then why on earth does the War Office insist on retaining the penalty? If the War Office honestly and sincerely believes that the patriotism of the troops is sufficient in itself, why do they insist upon keeping the death penalty? As a matter of fact, it makes one cynical, this simultaneous talk about the patriotism of the troops by the War Office and the retention of the death penalty. It reminds me of the dictum of the Emperor Frederic: "Trust in the Lord but keep your powder dry." The War Office says, pay ample lip service to the patriotism of the troops but be very careful to keep the death penalty ready. That attitude of the War Office shows what exactly they think about the patriotism of the troops.
Now we come to this point, as to whether we accept the War Office view that it is necessary. I deny that the death penalty is necessary. I deny that the people of this country regard it as being necessary. In my view what you need in the Army is to rely upon the sense of duty of the troops, their sense of patriotism, their devotion to what they believe is right. If they are fighting in a cause which they believe to be right, you may depend upon it their sense of duty, except for a very small proportion, will keep them fighting. Further, if that does not suffice, if you have a situation which has arisen in which the majority of the troops are not impelled to keep in the firing line by a sense of duty, if you have a war-weary army, the bulk of whom are anxious to get back, you have no business by means of the death penalty to keep a war-weary army fighting against odds when their heart has gone out of the fight. There is no sense of justice whatever in the people at home, the people who are away from the horrors of war, applying these sanctions in order to keep the war-weary troops doing what they are not prepared to do themselves.
I want to put this further point. It is old, I agree, but the Secretary for War ought to be reminded of it every time the matter is discussed. We have got the first-class illustration of the Australians, those who fought in the last War with magnificent courage That is denied by nobody. They were the finest troops we had, and the best shock troops
in the whole of the British Army. They fought all that time with unexampled gallantry, and the death penalty was never applied against them. If you could get that kind of fighting from the Australian troops without the terrorising effect of the death penalty, this House ought to be prepared to say that, what was right and proper for the Australian troops, ought to be right and proper for other British troops. Those who support the death penalty cannot even maintain that it achieves its purpose. They cannot even maintain that it protects the weakling from failure. If the War Office could say that this death penalty protects the weakling from the effects of his weakness, there might be something to be said for it, but it fails to protect the weakling. The man whose nerves are weak will fail, and does fail, death penalty or no death penalty. There were, I think, 364 actual executions in the last War, but that does not represent the amount of failures. If I remember aright, there were over 3,000 cases which were tried and over 3,000 cases in which the death penalty was awarded. It was remitted later, but you have over 3,000 cases which occurred in spite of the existence of the death penalty, and there were over 300 executions. Although I argue this on grounds of justice and do not want to appeal to sentiment, I would remind hon. Members that over 30 of those executed were young lads under 21 years of age.
I will not say more. Our case has already been made on many other occasions and is to be found in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It has not been met, and it cannot be met, and we are appealing to the Government once more to accept the inevitable and to over-ride the narrow and the antiquated views of their professional advisers, and come into line with public opinion and say that this death penalty—because it is unnecessary and unjust and barbarous—has got to be abolished. Let me warn the right hon. Gentleman. If there be any credit attaching to the making of a humane change like this, his Government had better seize it while they have the opportunity. The Motion which has been moved from these benches is not one moved by a section of the Labour party; it is a Motion which has the support of the united Labour party, and, depend
upon it, so soon as the next Government takes over the reins of office and the next Army (Annual) Bill is presented to this House, so soon will you find the change brought about for which we are pleading to-day. I therefore remind the right hon. Gentleman that forewarned is forearmed, and I advise him, while he may, to do this this which I am sure the country wants done, and get the Army death penalty done away with.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, and I should not have done so except to express my disgust at the frivolous nature of the speech made by the hon. Member who moved this new Clause. To me, it is absolutely incredible that a subject like this can be dealt with in such a light-hearted, off-hand and frivolous way. The trouble is that the vast majority of hon. Members on that side of the Committee do not know what war is. They have not seen it at its worst, as I have. If they had, I am quite sure that a speech of the character made by the Mover of this new Clause would have received reproof from the Members of that side of the Committee, and it would not have been necessary for it to have come from a Member on this side. It was. perhaps, my misfortune to go into the War at what was, perhaps, the very worst time. It was in the early stages, in the winter of 1914. The brigade we joined had had most of its officers and most of its men killed or wounded, or sent home sick. They had been filled up by Special Reservists, men in whom the spirit of discipline was not as high as in the old Regular Army; and, if I had not seen it myself, I should never have believed the condition of discipline in that brigade. As the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) said, they had cracked; the spirit of discipline had gone, and they were war-weary. What was to be done with that brigade? Had there been men available, they would have been sent back to the base to recover, but there were no troops to send in their place. To send them back to the base would simply have meant that the Germans would have been through to the Channel port3, round Paris and the War would have ended in the defeat of this country. From what I have seen of the countries that lost-the War, it is a very vital thing for the future of this-
country that we should have won it. I tremble to think what would have been the fate of the millions of people in this country had the Germans won instead of us. How were these men to be kept to their posts? They had cracked to a man. You could not send them back to the base, and yet they were in such a state that they would willingly have taken 10 years' penal servitude to be allowed to stay out of the line. In these circumstances, it was only the fear of the death penalty that kept them at their posts. It is tragic, I admit. It is the worst tragedy I have ever seen, but it is a fact; and that is the reason why I support the death penalty. I believe that, in circumstances such as that, it is the only thing which will compel men to do what they owe to their country.
A great deal of capital has been made out of the fact that there was no death penalty in the Australian Forces. I was alongside the Australians for a very considerable time, and I know perfectly well what happened there. If any man was giving any trouble, he was put over the top to do wiring, night after night, until he stopped it. I have seen written orders issued to the Australian machine-gun posts to the effect that, if a man left his post, he was not to be tried by court-martial, but was to be shot on the spot. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Australians, but do not let us imagine that every man in the Australian Forces was ready to go over the top at any moment of day or night. They had their failures, just as we had, although they never published them, and this is the way they kept the weaklings to their duty. I said I did not intend to speak very long on this subject; to me it is much too tragic, and much too painful. I wish, as much as anyone on the other side of the Committee, that this death penalty could be done away with, but the way to do that is not to have any more wars. I, at any rate, was not responsible for the War, and the party to which I belong in this House was not responsible for the War. The Leader of the party on the other side was supporting the Government which declared War, and not the party on this side. He was a supporter of the Government, and supported them through the six years of power which brought those events on the country; so do not blame me and this party for the War.
If you want to avoid the death penalty, the way to do it is to have no more war, but if we have war we must win it. If we are faced with a war again, and this country is to live, we shall again have to win it, but the way to avoid all these troubles is not to have another war.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have spoken so many times on this question that I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee very long. The Mover and Seconder of the New Clause are to-day adopting an attitude very different from the attitude they adopted two years ago when I followed them in this Debate. At that time, it was the pledged policy of the party which they represent to abolish capital punishment, not only in civil cases but in Army cases. To-day, as I understand it, the united party takes a different view. They accept the policy of the capital punishment in certain cases. That is a great step in advance. [Interruption.] One hon. Gentleman above the Gangway says he does not think so, but I understood the Mover and Seconder to say that it was the policy of the united party to accept the death penalty in certain cases.

Mr. BARR: No.

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend above the Gangway says "No," but I listened with great attention to the two hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the New Clause, and my recollection is that they said it was the policy of the united party to accept the death penalty in certain cases.

Mr. THURTLE: In certain cases of treason and treachery.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That was not contradicted, and, indeed, my hon. Friend above the Gangway reinforces his own speech in his interruption. He says in certain cases such as treason and treachery. That is a considerable 6tep in advance, and, really, it is a question of degree when we consider it from any corner of the House. It was my painful duty—there is other epithet to apply to it—during the War to have to defend, not only the death penalty, but Field Punishment No. 1. What I would put to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway is this: What is the alternative?

Mr. BARR: Humanity and Christianity.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Obviously, every single Member of the House would say that humanity and Christianity are a proper alternative. But if you are to have that as a proper alternative, you abolish war. Hon. Gentleman above the Gangway have not a monopoly of that aspiration. I believe there are hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House who, although they are often taunted by Members on this side, are just as sincerely anxious to abolish war as are hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, but, if you do not have the ideal condition in which there is no war, you must have an alternative, because the moment you enter upon the dread arbitrament of war the ordinary civilised conditions of humanity cease to operate. These are the hard facts which nobody can doubt. A great deal was said about Field Punishment No. 1 and its abolition. It was part of my duty, along with very able officers in the War Office, to alter Field Punishment No. 1 in 1917, and it was altered very considerably. In 1921 it was decided to abolish Field Punishment No. 1. [An HON. MEMBER: "1923!"] Yea, 1923, but I believe that Field Punishment No. 2 still exists. There was very little to choose between Field Punishment No. 2 and the modified Field Punishment No. 1. What was the reason why it was altered? The real reason was that most men, after a time, thought it was not proper punishment. It was described in those days as the crucifixion. It was a loathsome term to apply to any punishment, but that punishment was pretty severe.
But I come back to the point from which I started, and I ask hon. Members above the Gangway, what is their alternative to the death penalty? During the course of the War a very sane and sound Act was introduced called the Suspension of Sentences Act, and the main basis of that Act was that if a man was sentenced to a term of imprisonment he was observed while in detention barracks—because there is no such thing as prison in the Army—and if his conduct improved he was given an opportunity of joining his unit or any other unit after a certain time. That was a very great step in advance in the amelioration of prison treatment. Tell the soldier to-day in very different
circumstances that there is no death penalty, make him realise that the moment the war is over he will have the opportunity of benefiting by the general amnesty which always takes place after the war, and penal servitude, which is the only possible alternative to the death penalty, will have no effect upon him at all. That is an acknowledged fact. I regret it should be so, but those are the facts from careful observation.
The very phrase "death penalty" is one which conjures up all sorts of terrifying prospects and, as I said at the beginning, one would very gladly be without either those prospects or the penalty. But when you consider that, during the Great War, when our troops of all races, classes and creeds were fighting in every corner of the world, there were so few cases of actual execution, I think that points to one thing, or perhaps I should have said two things, first, the extraordinarily fine discipline of the Army as a whole, and, second, the merciful way in which each case was decided upon its merits. I believe, myself, that the actual percentage of executions was only 11 per cent., and that 89 per cent. of the cases which were submitted to the General Officer Commander-in-Chief were altered. The Committee must realise, in considering the case of a soldier tried by field general court-martial, there is a sense of discipline in every battalion. It is the last resort of a battalion commander to send anybody to be tried by field general court-martial. There is a pride in each battalion, and nobody in that battalion really desires any member of that battalion to be tried by field general court-martial. That is a well-known fact, and no hon. Member above the Gangway can deny that throughout the whole of that time the prisoner is treated with the greatest possible humanity. There is no prosecuting counsel in the ordinary sense of the term; he is not allowed in the Army. The prosecuting counsel is enjoined that he is to bring out in the course of the trial everything that could possibly be said for the prisoner. After that has been done, and the prisoner is tried by field general court-martial, the judgment of the Court has to go to the Divisional-General to the Corps Commander, to the Army Commander and then afterwards
to General Headquarters. When it goes to General Headquarters, if my recollection is right, the Judge Advocate-General examines it for any flaw in the indictment—or whatever the phrase is— or for any legal difficulties and afterwards, in the very last resort, it is sent through the Adjutant-General to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. I think I have shown that, when a case goes through alt those channels the various examinations and investigations are not carried out in a slipshod or summary fashion. They are done with care, with anxiety and, in my judgment, they are done with sympathy. I believe that during the last two or three years of the War an alteration was made in the way in which the sentence was to be made known to the man, and everything humanly possible was done to see that the whole thing was carried out as humanely as possible. I do not suppose for a moment that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway would deny that everything was humanely and sympathetically considered.
A comparison has been made with the Australian Forces. It is a well-known fact that officially the death penalty was not recognised in the Australian Army, and I am proud to think that it is equally well recognised that no two corps covered themselves with greater glory in the War than the two Australian corps. But I feel bound to say, in the interests of this discussion and in the interests of our own troops, and so that no unfavourable comparison shall be made of the Government, that the discipline in the Australian Army at the beginning of the War was far from being perfect. There were other ways of penalising deserters and of penalising cowardice adopted in the Australian Army, though not officially. In any case, there were a great many people connected with the Australian Army who very often desired to have a severe and exemplary punishment when the discipline of the Australian Corps was not as perfect as it ultimately became. Nobody desires with any enthusiasm to advocate the death penalty. I am sure that is the general view of everybody in this House, but when hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway say that we rely for the maintenance
of the death penalty upon Army influence, then I must disagree with them. It was not one Committee, it was two Committees, that sat to consider the advisability of maintaining the death penalty, and it was not all Army opinion. One Committee, I remember distinctly, was presided over by a Judge of the High Court. I see my hon. Friend who was then Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Lawson) in his place. I think he was a member of that Committee. I do not know whether he actually decided any of the points involved, but he was a member of that Committee.

Mr. LAWSON: Chairman.

Mr. MACPHERSON: He was chairman of that committee, and he had all the facts, and I am perfectly certain he could not stand up there and say that the committees did not investigate the situation thoroughly and sympathetically. I am perfectly certain that they did. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman would not allow himself to be a member or a chairman of a committee that looked without sympathy on any views of the private soldier. That Committee, mainly civilian, took the view that there was no alternative to the death penalty. They took that view with great regret, but they held it very firmly. We would like to see the entire abolition of war and the abolition of every necessity to consider a point of this kind, but facts being as they are, and the dread arbitrament of war always hanging over us, we have to consider first of all what is best in the interests of the Army fighting our battles and, in the long run, what will ultimately mean success to our arms and to our cause.

Captain GUNSTON: I would like to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman about courts-martial. I myself sat on a court-martial for the death penalty and I prosecuted. I should like to say that in almost every case we did our best to get the man off if there was anything at all in his favour. The party opposite would allow the death penalty in the exceptional case of desertion to the enemy, but they are really giving away the whole of their case,
because I cannot see that it is very much worse to be a deserter to the enemy—he may be carrying important information— than to desert and run away and expose a gap in our own line. That probably does more harm than is done in the case of a man who actually deserts to the enemy. The hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) spoke of the great difference of opinion among the rank and file as regards the death penalty as compared with the "brass hats" at the War Office. I do not know if he is aware that, during the War, when volunteers were required for shooting parties, they were never lacking. I think the reason was that on the whole the men were keener on the death penalty than were the officers.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch referred to the case of men asleep at then-posts, but I would ask him if he knows of any case where a man was shot for being asleep at his post? I do not think there was one. What really happened was that, when one went round the line, if one found a man asleep, the officer simply kicked him up and got him awake again. I do not know of a single case of a man being reported for being asleep at his post. I think we must take the opinion of the Army on this question. I should like, however, to mention what always seemed to me to be a great injustice in the War, and that was the enforcement of the death penalty upon voluntary troops, like Irish troops, as well as on conscript troops. I know there were several cases among the Irish troop3 where men had crept away from Ireland to are and fight, getting away with great difficulty. Then, in the course of the War, their nerves went, and they were shot.
In time, I believe the Army will be more or less agreed on the question of abolishing the death penalty, but I believe the first step to take would be to abolish the death penalty while you have a voluntary Army. I believe that that is how the difficulty will be got over Should there be a big war again, and should conscription have to be brought in, I think the death penalty will be necessary, but I have always felt, and I always felt during the War, that it is very hard, especially at the beginning, that men who have volunteered should be
shot, while there were people here staying behind who never joined up and never took any risks at all. I think, however, that all officers and men who were fighting in the late War felt very strongly that, when a man was shot, he was shot because we all knew it was for our own safety and for the safety of the Army. Although I believe that we have advanced in the abolition of brutal punishments, and that this step will be eventually taken, I think that at the present time we must take the opinion of the Army and the Army commanders. I am not thoroughly convinced that the death penalty is the guarantee of discipline which many people believe it is, but I believe, at the same time, that we cannot take the risk at present, and I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: I was very interested in the speeches delivered by the military representatives, the more so because I honestly admit that I was never a military man myself. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) merely emphasised the fact that the British Army carries out the present law in an orderly manner and in as humane a manner as possible. I do not think that any Members on these benches have inferred anything to the contrary. What we are concerned with is the actual barbarity of the act itself, and not the manner in which our people carry out the unpleasant work. There was a speech from an hon. Member opposite which I think will road well to-morrow in the eyes of any ex-privates who see it. The hon. Member's statement that usually men are driven to warlike operations by fear will be keenly interesting to them.
I am very pleased to associate myself with the appeal to the Secretary of State for War and the Cabinet to abolish the death penalty in the Army, and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the last speaker, because he believes, with us, that our nation has shed certain theories of barbarity. But we still retain this one, both in military and in civil life. I am very pleased with the march of events, because I believe that we are as a nation shedding many musty theories, and there is no shock—because it is a shock; I think this is the third year I have listened in this House to
a discussion of this idea—there is no shock in a civilised nation like the shock of a new idea. I can quite well understand why people who pin their faith to an old and orthodox theory do not take keenly to any new suggestion; it is quite against the accepted principles of human beings. But I believe man's march through the great civilising agencies has been in the direction of progress from brute to brotherhood.
I am sure that other Members of this House have been as interested as I have been in measuring, in a very elementary way, the applications of the early laws of this country. As is the case with us here to-day, they all seem to be dependent upon personal vengeance. In the early days of this country, even in the Palace of Westminster, the whole theory of the working of the Court of Star Chamber was actuated by violence and lack of legality, which even our friends who speak as military authorities affirm permeates the whole of the work connected with a court-martial. In the early days of the law of this country, people had to protest against the decisions of the Court of Star Chamber being without a jury, and without any compulsion to state reasons for the judgment; and it was only abolished in 1640 because of its obvious cruelty and persecution. That shows how we have got on and evolved in this country, from the early days of persecutions and personal vengeance to a realisation that the effects of the birch, and even of flogging in the Army and Navy, were of no avail in creating loyalty and discipline among the ranks of the men there. Although I am neither old in years nor old as a Member of Parliament, I am old enough to have read the defences of the admirals in the Navy and the leaders in the Army of a hundred strokes with the birch in order to get men's obedience.
If we had a British Army that was lacking in esprit de corps, that was lacking in loyalty to this nation, that was lacking in discipline, I think there would be some legitimate military reason for maintaining capital punishment in the Army; but this nation not only boasts of its voluntary system of recruitment, but, even in the terrible carnage of the last War, the figures proved that the loyalty of the men fighting in the British Army was undoubted. The figures were stated
last year in this House by the Secretary of State for War himself, and there were only about 3,000 members of the British Army who were tried by court-martial. In only 11 per cent. of the cases were sentences of death actually executed— 264 members of the British Army; and my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, who asked us what is our alternative, is that this 11 per cent.—264 lives—would have been saved if, instead of resorting to the old application of barbarism, the tem perament and psychology of these men had been analysed and understood. We have the right, as a nation of Christian, civilised people, to insist that our medical men should understand the psychology of these men, and, rather than murdering them—I am serious on this question— rather than taking their lives, it was our duty to send them home and treat them as far as we possibly could in order to cure them of their nervous disability and make strong virile men of them. That is our alternative.
I know that, under war-time conditions, men and nations do things that they never would or could do in the coolness of sober hours and normal economic conditions, but I myself am against the death penalty in the Army because I think it is in contradiction to all known English law. In English law, anyone indicted for such an offence and tried would certainly not be condemned without its being proven by the prosecution that there was a definite and deliberate intention to commit a crime. That is the elementary principle of English law. With regard to the military service, my sincere and human objection to capital punishment in the Army is that it was inflicted on men who were not guilty in the sense of doing deliberately in the face of the enemy something to endanger the lives of their comrades. Men are entitled, if I may use that word, to this penalty for being asleep on duty, but I cannot imagine a British soldier deliberately neglecting his obligation of duty to his comrades, and deliberately putting them in danger in any circumstances, either in face of the enemy or otherwise. I cannot imagine a British soldier deliberately acting in such a way. It is because I believe that, that I do not think the British nation should deliberately impose
upon a British soldier something that we would not impose upon the ordinary British citizen.
I have said that, if we had an Army which was lacking in discipline, in esprit de corps, in loyalty to this country, I could understand there being some military necessity for what we call to-day the death penalty in the Army. I speak as one who is not a military man, but is in a sense anti-military, but I have an admiration for the keen sense of the loyalty of the men who serve this country. I quite agree that we do not profess, on these benches, to have a monopoly either of humanitarian principles or of loyalty. On the other hand, I believe that people who think differently from us may be earnest, may be sincere, and sometimes may be right. I pay my tribute to the men in the Army when I say that to-day there is no necessity to retain the punishment called the death penalty. I say that the figures issued by the Secretary of State for War himself prove that the circumstances do not justify it, and I say that the penalty itself is too strong for the circumstances. I say that, like the death penalty in civil life, it has not achieved the purpose that it set out to achieve, and I believe that anything in our life, whether in our civic life or in our military life, that fails to achieve its purpose, has no right to be retained. I have said that in our advance in civilisation we have shed many things. but one of the most wicked types of things that we have not shed is hypocrisy as nations. Years ago, when nations went to war, they had the honesty to declare that they went for conquest. Now, when civilised nations go to war, they have a slogan. They disown any desire to collar territory—

The CHAIRMAN: I think this is getting rather wide of the question of capital punishment.

Mr. GROVES: I was merely setting out to prove that the object which we set out to achieve IS not achieved in our national aspirations. When we went to war, we set out to achieve certain principles, so we say. With regard to the use of the death penalty in the Army, I only want to strengthen the point that we cannot achieve the object that we pursued, and I venture to submit to the Committee that the death penalty has
failed in its purpose,, just as the use of the stocks in this country years ago in order to hinder, shall I say, civic crime, failed in its purpose, just as the birch in the Army failed, just as the persecution of pioneers of real thought in this country failed. Coming to this House to-day, I stood with a degree of respect in Stratford Parish Churchyard looking at the monument erected to the eight men who were burned there for preaching the Christian religion. The only point I want to make is that, in addition to being burned, it is stated on that monument that before being burned they were tortured. In the early days of this country that was quite a popular thing, but we have outgrown that. What I want to urge upon the British Parliament is that the death penalty is a remnant of a barbaric practice. We have no right to use it. War itself is a remnant of barbarity. I was pleased to hear speeches from all quarters to-day showing that hon. Members are anxious to do all they can in order that war shall be no more. I was prompted to speak to-day because a constituent of mine has suffered through the death penalty being executed upon a soldier. I have endeavoured to obtain a military pension for the widow and her children, who are suffering to-day. He was one of the men who volunteered to fight, so that he was no coward in that respect; but during the War he got into some circumstances which resulted in his being one of the 264 men shot, and his widow and children are now living on Poor Law relief in the County Borough of West Ham. That is a case in my own neighbourhood, and it proves to me the real barbarity of such a sentence. Some 264 soldiers were shot in this way, and we do not know where they were buried. I am acquainted with the circumstances of a French soldier, Private Santerre, who was shot in France for disobeying the order of a superior officer. He was shot in the early days of 1918, but in 1920 the authorities sent to his home the military medal for glory, with the statement that it was
Awarded because Santerre had given his life gloriously.
The father wrote back,
My son did not die gloriously. He was murdered in a cowardly way. I want no medal. I demand justice.
It pleased him to know that the French military final appeal court, the Douai Court of Military Appeal, after thorough examination and inquiry into the whole circumstances of the death of the lad rehabilitated him as a soldier. After his death they inquired into the circumstances of his brutal murder and rehabilitated him as a glorious soldier. We talk of the courts-martial and of the 264 men who were shot. Here is the case of a man shot in France. Hon. Members can have the circumstances, the date of the military inquiry and the date of the rehabilitation. The whole circumstances are brutal. Such brutal practices should have been shared by any civilised nation, and they will be shed when the brutality of war has been shed. There is one consolation for the father of the French soldier who was shot and for the widow in my constituency. I often try to console her by saying: "You do not know where your husband was shot or buried, but God knows. He may lie in the grave of the Unknown Warrior."

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I would not have intervened in the Debate but for the remarks of hon. Members opposite. It has been suggested that the death penalty is wanted by the Army and that the Army merely means Generals, Colonels and brass hats. As a Colonel, I should like to say a few words in that respect. I think all my colleagues in the Army will agree with me that this penalty is not wanted in the Army in the least, but it is considered necessary for reasons which were ably explained by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who has had great experience. It is not fair to say that it is simply wanted by Generals, Colonels and a clique of senior officers. I would like to mention a case which came to my knowledge after the last Debate. I was speaking with my chauffeur who, like many of us, served throughout the War, and he told me that he was driving an ambulance and on one occasion he had to drive a man who met the death punishment. He had a chance of speaking to the man, who told him that he had already been tried five times for the same thing. He admitted, quite frankly, that he had been guilty of cowardice and had let down his comrades, which was a very serious matter.
He admitted that he had been very fairly treated, that he had been let off lightly by those on the spot who were able to do it, and that he had been treated leniently by the various courts before which he had been charged.
I am glad that hon. Members opposite recognise that fairness and humanity is shown in the treatment of these cases. Here is the case of a man who admitted that he had failed five times and who cheerfully admitted that his sentence was perfectly fair, and he went to his death like a man. It may help hon. Members opposite to realise the fairness of courts-martial, when even a man who is about to suffer the death penalty recognises the justice of the penalty. That supports the view that has been put forward that although a large number of cases were tried, the humane view was taken. The system has been humanely administered. Although the death penalty is a necessity and one which none of us who have Army experience likes yet, as the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty says, there is nothing at present which could be put in its place. For that reason. much as I dislike the death penalty, I realise that it is part of the necessity of warfare in serious offences and I feel it to be my duty to support the Government.

Mr. BARR: Those of us on this side who have taken part in this discussion have a peculiar satisfaction in the fact that some of the other speakers have shown appreciation of our point of view and realise that "no more war" is a great ideal. I should like to say in connection with an interruption which I made when the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was speaking that pressing this proposal our ultimate goal is the abolition of the death penalty not only in the Army but in civil affairs. We are not impugning the administration of this matter; it is the code we object to and not its administration. We recognise that there is a wide hierarchy of appeal from the court-martial right up to the Judge Advocate-General, and up to the Commander-in-Chief; but I would like to say, with all respect, that we have to consider the mentality of these various courts and of the men. As one poet puts it, "They live with death." Their hand is subdued to that it works in. They
have feelings which run back to the traditions of the Army which are very far removed from what we advocate. Nor do we impugn their humanity.
We have been told that these soldiers are treated with the greatest humanity and the greatest sympathy; and that the announcement was made to them in the most agreeable way that they would be shot in cold blood. The hon. Member who has just spoken told us of one man who went with considerable satisfaction to his doom. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of an instance in Scottish history during the days which were known as the great persecution. The Government said that they would be most clement and kindly to the women; they would not burn them at the stake; they would not behead or shoot them but they would give them a gentle form of exit from this world in that they would drown them in the Solway sands. There we had a kind of clemency and humanity exercised, but we still think in Scotland that they were martyrs—although it was done so humanely—and that they suffered a great wrong.
Let mo pass to some of the methods in which this penalty is exercised and some of the offences to which it is applied. The hon. and gallant Member for the Thornbury Division of Gloucester (Captain Gunston) said he was not aware that there had been any case of a man suffering the death penalty for sleeping at his post. If he looks up the records he will find that few suffered in that way, but there are two instances, at least, which are given of those who suffered for what was counted an aggravated offence. Even in the most aggravated case, it may be the example of a man being completely worn and unable to resist the incessant demands of nature. Every shepherd in Scotland knows that if he sleeps in the snow in a storm it means certain death, but that does not prevent shepherds sleeping at their posts in snow storms and meeting their doom in that way. Therefore, regard should be paid in the Army to the demands of nature, and this penalty should be ruled out. It is emphasised that by sleeping at his post a man may be giving away his comrades; he may be exposing the whole line to attack from the enemy and may be sacrificing many lives. That may be-
true. The General who makes a false move in a battle is guilty in exactly the same way, but I have not heard that in the list of 264 soldiers who were shot there was included any General who was put through that discipline. I would go further and say that a statesman who makes a false move in diplomacy, either in this country or in any country, and thereby initiates war has a similar toll to his charge.
Take the question of desertion. In Scotland, in the old days, we had a different way of dealing with cowards, if we believe what is handed down to us as history. An address was given to them before the battle, and they were told:
What can fill a cowardis grave,
Let him turn and flee
That is said to have been the address given at Bannockburn. I do not think that even Englishmen will say that Scotsmen fought less bravely because we do not first shoot down the cowards, but allowed them to turn and flee.
It is not given to every man to have courage which rises with danger. It may be a physical and mental breakdown, and it may come after a long struggle on the part of the man himself, a long mental and physical struggle. We do not know what the man is resisting, and 30 of those who suffered the. death penalty were men under 21 years of age. Some of them had falsified their age in order to join the Army and get to the front. That was an evidence of their patriotism and their loyalty, and, although I have no doubt that this was considered to some extent in their case, I do not think it is sufficiently considered so long as the death penalty exists. I believe in many cases that the light which led them astray was a light from heaven, the thought of home and the desire to return to home. This led them to desert in some cases. There was a case in my own congregation of a lad charged with desertion, not in the face of the enemy but while in this country. It was the desire to get home once again that led him to do it. He hid himself in the train, and, when it stopped before it got to the main station in Glasgow, he got out simply because his attachment to home led him to desert. I have no doubt that in other cases there were very mixed feelings which made men take this course.
There was another case in which I was interested—the case of a man whose views
in regard to war itself changed when he was at the Front. [Laughter.] The views of a good many changed when they were at the front. This is not a laughing matter. It was not a laughing matter for this man, because he was condemned to suffer the death penalty. But I am proud to think that not only representatives on this side of the House but representatives of the other side of the House, and ladies and gentlemen of high degree, took a special interest in cases of this kind, and, partly through their exertions as well as the humanity of those who had to administer the law, that death penalty was not carried out. The first thing he did on coming into this country was to call upon me and thank me for the small part I had taken in his deliverance. There will be more cases like that should, unhappily, war break out again. This death penalty is justified on the plea of military necessity. We are told that when war breaks out the ordinary civilising thoughts and traditions do not operate, that in the stress and strain of war such things as this must be done. There are limits, in my opinion, even to military necessity,, and the outraging of justice and elementary humanity constitutes such limits. We have been asked, what can be done by way of an alternative? The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Groves) touched upon the most important point. The whole idea is changing as regards the discipline at home and in the Army as well. In the old days, it was terrorism, and the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) used some remarkable words when he said:
This death penalty is the only thing that will compel men to do what they owe to their country.
If that be so, where is the patriotism of which we hear so much? I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member is not in his place, because I want to ask him, after this remark, how it was that he voted for our Motion last year. I am prepared to put his statement to-day and have it cancelled by his vote last year. In all our public schools we are recognising that it is not the fear of punishment that is the real inspiration of discipline. The old idea in the industrial schools of this country was that you should whip boys in order to make them attend school. In Glasgow we have established an industrial school for truants, based on entirely new
principles. We did not apply to them the whip and corporal discipline, we appealed to what is \best in their nature, and the result was that the attendance of these boys at once rose from 40 per cent. to 80. That is our real alternative; that is the real incentive to discipline. If I may alter one word in our greatest national poet:
The fear of death's a hangman's whip,
Tae haud the wretch in order;
But where ye feel your honour grip,
Let that aye be your border.
That is the real ground for any true discipline either in the Army or elsewhere. There is a great saying of a great preacher, Dr. Robertson of Brighton:
If you would make men trustworthy, trust them; if you would make men true, believe them.
If you want to build up an army you must build on this kind of discipline and not on the fear of the death penalty. We have been told that unless there be such a deterrent the Army will go to pieces. This has been disproved by the fact that many forms of punishment which were once thought to be most necessary have passed away, and the discipline is as good now as ever it was. I object to the death penalty because it is used as a threat. Take an example from my own knowledge. A large number of men. serving in Egypt in the Royal Army Medical Corps were compelled under the threat of the death penalty to join the infantry and the fighting forces. I object to this weapon being put into the hands of the military authorities enabling them to do what this House itself recognises should not be done. The very fact that you have this deterrent constitutes its injustice. In the Debate last year an hon Member said that it was not to punish the unfortunate man who had committed this offence that the death sentence was imposed, but because it was an example. What comfort is that to the man who has to suffer the death penalty? What comfort is it for him to be told that it is not inflicted as a due punishment for his misdeeds, but as an example?  It is the old expedient, that one should die for the people; to make an example and terrorise the troops.
It is also a capricious method, and if the House will allow me I will read the words applied to capital punishment generally, but which are equally applicable to the death penalty in the Army,
by Earl Russell, who was Prime Minister of this country. He said in this House:
When I consider how difficult it is for any Judge to separate the case, which requires inflexible justice, from that which admits the force of mitigating circumstances, how invidious the task of the Secretary of State in dispensing the mercy of the Crown, how critical the comments made by the public, how soon the object of general horror becomes the theme of pity, how narrow and how limited the examples given by this condign and awful punishment, how brutal the scene of execution, I come to the conclusion that nothing would be lost to justice, nothing lost in the preservation of innocent life, if the punishment of death were altogether abolished.
Think of the effect of this on all concerned. In one of the reports of the Departmental Committee it is said that the infliction of the death penalty had had a beneficial effect on the troops, including the firing party. I cannot think that the effect on the firing parties was good. What does one of His Majesty's Scottish Prison Commissioners, Dr. Devon, say about it? He says:
I have never seen anyone who had anything to do with the death penalty who was not the worse for it.
I look at it from the point of view of the parents themselves. In my own district, there was a lad who suffered in this way. He incurred the death penalty. When he was first under trial and still had a hope that he would be spared, he wrote home a beautiful letter to his mother, in my own native town, saying that he was awaiting trial, but that he believed he would be all right, and he desired her to send on the parcels as usual. Some hon. Members may say, this is sentimental sob-stuff. I make no apology for sob-stuff of this kind in relation to a question like this, and I say that war itself is the greatest purveyor of sorrow and sob-stuff I think what views that parent must have had of the Army and her country's law. I know something of the daily agony, the living death, which parents went through during the War when they thought of their young people at the Front. In my own congregatin. I had 350 at the Front, of whom 72 fell. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull said that some of us did not know what war was. I know something about war, and I know something about its injustice. May I mention a little case like this? Two of my own sons served
in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and they were compulsorily transferred to the fighting forces. It rankles in my mind, but I do not dwell upon it. A third son, whose memory is dear, specially dear, had to undergo severe punishment for a petty offence in the Navy. He was taken from us, but I recall his name at all times with sorrow and with great pride in his character and conduct, and when I wrote a little book I put upon the frontispiece:
In continual remembrance of my son James who stood for justice and equality.
6.0 p.m.
I try to picture to myself what my feelings would have been if I had been in the position of those parents whose boys had suffered the death penalty. I should have cherished their names with no less sorrow and no less pride and affection, but I should also have cherished a great sense of wrong and a deep-seated animus against my country. Were it not for the fact that I am wedded for life to constitutional and pacific methods, I do not know where my feelings might have led me. But many are not under that restraint. I say to the governing powers of this country that so long as they maintain barbarous regulations like these, although they may talk about peace and good-will, they are, more than any Communists in the country, stirring up hatred and vengeance and feelings of rebellion against a social order of which these injustices, inhumanities, and enormities are most unsettling and most horrible excrescences.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: The Debate has wandered rather far from the subject which we should be discussing. That is-no fault of the hon. Member who began the Debate. We have since then gone as far to have attacks on the Court of Star Chamber—rather prejudiced attacks, despite the fact that it was abolished in 1640. The speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken might have been a speech not only against capital punishment in general, but against any form of punishment. It took us back to the Battle of Bannockburn, which has a way of recurring in the speeches of Members of the hon. Gentleman's nationality. The hon. Member assured us that upon that occasion anyone not inclined to take part in the battle was allowed to go away. He did not say whether advantage was taken of that offer. I would remind him that according to tradition, if not his-
tory, a similar thing occurred before the Battle of Agincourt, when King Henry V said:
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
I do not know whether any advantage was taken of that offer. I think it doubtful, because as a matter of fact the occasion of that battle was that the retreat of the British Army to the coast was cut off by the French, so that it was not as good an offer as it appeared to be at first sight. I wish to deal with the Clause in this Bill for abolishing the death penalty in the Army. I say at once that I am in favour of that Clause. I am not going to support it on any reason of sentiment, but on reasons of policy which hitherto have not been put forward sufficiently in its support. Behind the reason of policy there is the consideration of public conscience. The law that has not the public conscience behind it is a bad law, partly because it is never carried out. The strongest argument in favour of the abolition of the death penalty are the facts stated by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) who spoke from the Liberal Benches, and by my hon. and gallant Friend on this side of the House, who reminded us of the fact that over 3,000 cases which were carefully tried—cases deserving of the death penalty—were recommended to headquarters, and that after they had gone through all the processes that they to go through, of these 3,000 in only 11 per cent. of the cases was the death penalty finally awarded. In my opinion that proves that the law is wrong. There is no law worse than the law that is in existence and is not carried out.
Personally, I am in favour of the death penalty for certain crimes. Experience differs as to the effect of the abolition of the death penalty in different countries; it is a moot point. The one thing generally agreed is that the worst effect that has ever been obtained was when in France the death penalty still remained upon the Statute Book but criminals were aware that owing to the soft heart of President Fallieres no death
penalty was ever carried out. There was the greatest outbreak of crime in that country during that time that there ever had been. It has been proved by the statement of the right hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty, who was formerly Secretary of State for War, that this is a law which people hesitate to carry out, to such an extent that only in 11 per cent. of the cases in the late War— there must have been a tremendous case against a man before he was brought to the Court—was the sentence carried out.
I know how this law has worked in the field. An hon. and gallant Member said that there had not been a single case of a man executed for sleeping on sentry duty. That may or may not be the case. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that there were two cases. Sleeping on sentry duty is a terribly serious offence, and it should be very severely punished. It should not, in my opinion, be punished by the death penalty, but it should be very severely punished. It is an offence which does not involve any great moral obliquity, but it may have terrible consequences to large numbers of people. If a girl merely takes a box of matches into a munitions factory that is not a great moral crime on her part, but it was a crime for which people were sent to prison during the War, quite rightly, because it involved terrible consequences upon so many people. I know that as a matter of fact in the War officers were warned against reporting men for being asleep on sentry duty, because it involved a trial by court-martial, and involved either an acquittal, which would have been wrong, or the death penalty, which no one wished to inflict. It is better to have a severe penalty and one that people will not hesitate to carry out, than to have a more severe penalty which people will refuse to carry out.
Desertion is another offence to be severely punished, but it is not an offence which really deserves the death penalty. A few days ago an hon. and gallant Gentleman upon this side of the House confessed that during the War he frequently left the post of duty and flown to this country without permission. Suppose that he had had the misfortune to meet with an accident while foxhunting—I believe that accidents do occur in that sport—and had been unable to return, what would have been
his offence? Might it not have been interpreted as desertion? Would anyone have wished him to be executed for it? Of course they would not. The offence would have been smoothed over; some other charge would have been preferred. Therefore, upon those grounds I say it is a mistake in policy to have a penalty for an offence which the public opinion, not only of the country at large, but of the people who have to administer the law, the officers in charge, does not wish to have inflicted for this offence. Most of the Army Regulations were drawn up in days when armies were very different from what they are to-day. There have been questions about the abolition of war, and many hon. Members have spoken on that subject. It has nothing to do with the question before us. Unless there is to be war there is no good talking about this Clause at all. The wars of to-day are fought by citizen armies, by armies made up largely of volunteers. The armies which the Duke of Wellington commanded were armies of a very different sort. They were composed of riff raff. He said so himself, or I would not say it. For those people there was need of different kinds of laws from the kind that you need for the armies of to-day.
The position with regard to cowardice has changed enormously, because you are dealing with a different type of man. You have to judge by different standards. It was acknowledged at the end of the War that there were known cases where men's nerve was beginning to fail. When it was known to be failing those men were sent home; advantage was taken at the time of the opportnuity to put them out of the way. If they were officers or men who had done their duty and done it well in the past, they were quite rightly not left in positions where they might have been responsible for great failure. That was the right policy. There was great difficulty in deciding what was shell-shock and what was cowardice, but I do not agree that there is no such thing as cowardice. There is such a thing as cowardice and there is such a thing as a breakdown of nerves. To judge between the two is very difficult for a medical man or anyone. To judge between the brave man and the coward is extremely difficult. Further, the bravest men of all are the men who are most
frightened. But to say that there is no such thing as cowardice is as absurd as to say that there is no difference between spring and winter.
It is very difficult for us at this time of year to say what is a spring day and what is a winter day, but there is a real difference, and there are such things as cowards, and they deserve all that they get. Fortunately there is no vice which meets with such general condemnation from humanity as cowardice. Perhaps it meets with more condemnation than it deserves in comparison with other vices. The coward is the most universally condemned and the most shrunk from of all human beings. That is a strong sanction for the law against cowards. A great many of them undoubtedly did join the Army. When you have an army of 4,000,000 I refuse to believe that there are no cowards amongst them. But the cowards will suffer and should suffer. For myself I would rather a thousand cowards went free than that one brave man should suffer the shameful death of a coward at the hands of his fellow soldiers.

Mr. MORRIS: I rise to reinforce the very powerful argument that has been addressed to the House by the last speaker. He has drawn attention to what is a very important point. I agree with every word said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in regard to the justice of court-martial procedure and the businesslike care with which the evidence is reviewed, and reviewed not only by the court-martial, but at varying stages afterwards, that every care is taken to see that the law is fairly-administered by the members of the court and by all responsible, and that not for one moment could he utter one word of protest against the administration of the work of the court-martial. But in view of the fact that the last speaker called attention to, namely, that warfare is carried on under very different conditions to-day and carried on by a citizen army, one asks oneself not only whether the law is properly administered, but whether it is equitable as between one citizen and another. During the Great War we had in the Army about 4,000,000 men. Those who were the real cowards of the country during that period either used the advantage given them by
the Military Service Act, and probably the great bulk kept out of the Army-altogether. The position resulting is that real cowardice is not dealt with at all. What is called cowardice and what may, in fact, in certain circumstances be cowardice in the field of battle, is met by sentence of death. When the law stands in that position it is little wonder that those responsible for carrying out the sentence of death or responsible for setting the military law in motion, should hesitate to make reports that will bring men to trial. I can understand that every officer and man responsible during the Great War hesitated before preferring a charge against another man for cowardice or desertion. I can well understand that only 11 per cent. of those charged were sentenced to death.
It is an impossible position. You cannot determine what cowardice is. Everyone who had experience of the last War would say this—that when you found it necessary to detail men for a particularly dangerous task and asked for volunteers, you got all the men you wanted inside a few minutes. Many men, if they did feel any sense of cowardice, only felt it when they were comparatively out of danger, when they were back at rest and when their imaginations were given free play. Then they thought over the danger which they had passed through or which they might have to pass through at some future time. It is largely a question of imagination and temperament. Actually, when face to face with the enemy, they were so occupied with their duties that their imaginations were given little play. They were engaged in a task which they had to perform, and many valiant acts were done—as the doers themselves were the first to say—merely because those concerned were carrying out their duty. They had no thought of bravery at all. On the other hand, one saw cases of men going out for the first time—faced for the first time with the dangers of war, totally unaccustomed to war, seeing the carnage that was to be witnessed there without any previous knowledge—entirely losing their heads. They ran away in some cases. I can understand that an officer who knew the circumstances would not wish to prefer a charge in those cases, and if a charge were preferred, no court-martial would convict. I know of no court-martial which ever did. The
circumstances were inquired into under the Act as it stands. If the Act were literally carried out, the death penalty would have been executed, but, apart from the question of humanity, the question of justice arises, and, in the present state of modern warfare, it demands that the death penalty shall not be executed at all.
I fully agree that these penalties were framed at a time when warfare and armies were totally different from what they are to-day, and when we knew a great deal less about the mentality of the soldier and about human psychology than we know to-day. Men in the mass do their duty from a sense of loyalty to one another and to their country. All ranks in the last War did their duty, not so much because of the fear of death, but for other reasons. The fear of death is not a very great deterrent. If the fear of death were a great deterrent, you would not have men ready to face danger for their country with the readiness which was shown in the late War. In the other case, there is always added the hope of escaping detection. If you are to avoid that, and if you want a real deterrent, then I say adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) and put on a severe penalty which no one will hesitate about executing. It will be far more effective and far more in consonance with what we know of modern warfare, modern armies and modern psychology. It will be far more in keeping with the modern outlook than the present state of the law.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I think it may be convenient if I now reply to some of the points which have been raised in connection with this matter. I should like to point out, in the first place, that the proposed new Clause seeks to amend the Section of the Act dealing with active service conditions. It seeks to remove certain cases from the possibility of the death penalty and subject them to such lesser punishment as may be laid down. I wish to emphasise that all these paragraphs refer to acts in the presence of the enemy. We have heard from the Mover and Seconder and other speakers on the Opposition benches that they agree that the death penalty is necessary and ought to
be carried out in certain circumstances, but they say there are exceptions which they have inserted here. The exceptions which they make, however, accentuate the difficulty of administering these disciplinary laws and also show some confusion of thought. We find in one of the paragraphs that hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently are quite willing to allow such an act as "through cowardice sending a flag of truce to the enemy" to remain punishable by death, and yet they wish to remove from the death penalty such an offence as "knowingly doing, when on active service, any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's forces or any part thereof." Any act knowingly done which would imperil the success of His Majesty's forces would not only imperil that success, but of necessity would also imperil the lives of the comrades of the soldier concerned. He is placing his fellow-soldiers in a worse position. That case is to be exempted from the death penalty, according to the suggestion of this proposed new Clause, and yet offences which are to my mind, if anything, less serious are allowed to remain subject to the death penalty. That, as I say, shows a certain confusion of thought in dealing with this whole question.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), who moved this proposed new Clause, said the War Office, if asked why they insisted on the death penalty, would reply that it was Army opinion, and he went on to indicate that that Army opinion was formed entirely by those to whom he referred as "brass hats." I am sorry that his memory was shorter that that of some hon. Members who spoke after him. He apparently has forgotten the committee which was set up when the Socialist Government were in power by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) to consider an Amendment, very similar to this proposal. That committee was far from being entirely composed of "brass hats," and it had the privilege, during the greater part of its existence, of having as chairman the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), my predecessor at the War Office.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Was he the only civilian?

Captain KING: He was not the only civilian. There were only three active service executive officers on that committee. There were three other civilians, in addition to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and there was a paymaster and, therefore, the proportion of "brass hate" to civilians was not overpowering. In fact the "brass hats" were in the minority. The hon. Member went further and said that when opinions were being collected on the subject of the death penalty it was always general officers commanding and senior officers who expressed those opinions. I would remind the hon. member that the committee to which I refer, during the period when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was presiding over it, had the benefit of the views of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) for one; they also had the views at their seventh meeting of three soldiers of the Regular Army, and at their eighth meeting of three more soldiers of the Regular Army, and at a subsequent meeting they had the evidence of an airman, and, later on, they had evidence from a soldier of the Territorial Army. So that it was not merely the opinions of "brass hats" and not only the evidence of general officers commanding that were considered by that Committee. I have had the honour on two occasions now of dealing with this question, and therefore, instead of putting forward my own views, I am going to quote the report of this committee which many hon. Members seem to have forgotten. I am basing my reply entirely on the opinions expressed in the report of what we call the Lawson Committee.
Dealing with the death penalty the committee say:
The officers, non-commissioned officers and men with whom we discussed the question agreed that the effect was good, especially because it enforced on the troops the lesson that complete self-sacrifice is demanded by military duty in war.
They also say:
On this point there was a concensus of opinion on the part of all service witnesses of all ranks, who were not professed advocates of abolition, that penal servitude or imprisonment would have little, if any, deterrent effect, and, indeed, looking to the conditions of modern war and to the fact that the offender concerned ex-hyptothesi found those conditions almost beyond his endurance, it is hard to see how a measure which removes him into safety with the certain prospect of an amnesty at the end of the War can in many cases be anything but attractive to him.

Mr. PALING: Is that in the Report?

Captain KING: Yes, that is the Report of the Committee set up by the Socialist Government when it was in office.

Mr. PALING: Was it published?

Captain KING: It was issued as a Parliamentary Paper. I would advise hon. Members opposite to read it. It is a most informative and very interesting document, and it will convince them that the War Office are not standing merely on the opinions of "brass hats," but on the carefully considered opinion of a Committee set up by a Socialist Government after hearing evidence not only from senior officers but from all ranks of the Army. I also wish to remind hon. Members opposite and the Committee generally that the Lawson Committee removed certain offences, even those committed on active service, from the possibility of the death penalty. They removed from that possibility all offences in times of peace with the exception of the crime of mutiny. I also remind the Committee that in every case where the death penalty can be imposed a lesser punishment maybe substituted. Wherever the words "death penalty" occur, they are always followed by the words "or such lesser punishment as may be set out in the Act, etc." So it is not the case, because the death penalty is laid down as a possible punishment, that it is imposed on every occasion. In that connection I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper). He seems to think that because only 11 per cent. of the men who were sentenced were actually executed it shows the failure of the system. So far from that being the. case, it only shows the care with which all these cases were revised and reviewed after the sentence had been imposed.
Personally, I agree with him that cowardice deserves punishment. I also agree with the Lawson Committee that the death penalty is necessary as a final deterrent. I think all of us who served during the War experienced fear. I do not think there is a man who would boast that he had never experienced fear. Under war-time conditions it is merely a question of a man's strength of will. It is his own will-power which has to overcome his fear. He may use many methods to accomplish that victory. He
may disdain to show his fear in the presence of an enemy. He may be sustained by the traditions of his regiment. He might have many aids to his courage, but there, at the back of everything, is the death penalty, that means to him that, if he seeks to evade death in the field, he has the possibility of death for cowardice when he has run away. I will not further detain the Committee, because there are other Clauses to follow, but I will conclude by saying that it is not merely on the opinion of senior military officers that we wish to retain this death penalty, but after the careful consideration given to the subject by the Committee set up by the Socialist Government.

Major HILLS: I believe the time has come for a reconsideration of the death penalty. I do not want to traverse the ground that has been gone over already, but I will confine myself to the single case of inflicting the penalty for cowardice. Human nature is a very strange thing, and so very complex that men may be afraid of quite different things.

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1927.
2. Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1927.
3. Montrose Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1927.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Major HILLS: I was putting in a plea for a reconsideration of the death
penalty. I think that things have changed and are changing so much that even though this question was considered but a short time ago, it is worthy of further consideration now. As I said, I will deal only with the question of the death penalty for cowardice. My hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who has just spoken, said very truly that everybody was afraid of something. I think they are, and it is a very curious thing. I heard of a case the other day of an officer who was famous for his courage, who won the V.C. and was killed in action afterwards, but who was terrified in a thunderstorm, and a great many people are afraid of far less dangerous things than war. Suppose in the cases with which we are dealing you do apply the penalty of death, what good do you do by it? You do no good to the man himself. You do not make the man any braver, for that man is shot. Do you make the comrades of that man any braver? Do you increase the spirit of self-sacrifice to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, or do you make the comrades of that man more likely to go forward? I do not think you do. I do not think that human nature is constituted that way. I remember very well that in the Debate which we had last year my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) put the case for the death penalty as well, I thought, as it could be put, and he said:
It is not fair to ask a man to go to what amounts to certain death unless that man knows that his comrades will be shot unless they accompany him.
I want to examine that argument. J think it is rather a strange one for a man to hold. I do not think a man will say" I will go forward upon this dangerous enterprise, and I shall be supported by my comrades on the right and loft because, although they are not as bravo as I am, they know they will be shot if they do not go." I do not think men's minds work in that way.
I will recall for a moment a picture that many Members of this House have seen, a front line assault trench just before the zero hour. The men who have to go over the top will be thinking of various things, but I do not believe they will be thinking "Unless I go forward I shall be shot." I do not believe
that for a moment. I do not believe their minds work in that way. Unless there is some very direct benefit to be derived from the example, there is no justification for shooting a man for cowardice. On that day he may be in a low state of vitality, or something may have happened to him, but all the complexities of human frailty are lumped into one and called cowardice and he is shot. All nations find the particular form of discipline under which their troops will fight best. In the past, no doubt, armies did fight best with the death penalty, but I think we are growing out of that, and that if we have to have another war—and I for one believe we can make war impossible —we shall find we have reached a stage at which the courage and patriotism of men will replace any stimulus which may have been supplied in the past by the death penalty.
Above all, I do not think you have the right to conscript an army, to take men from the plough, the shop and the counting house, men of all sorts and all conditions, of all degrees of physique and stamina and courage, and then, if a man break down in courage, to shoot him. I rather disagree with what an hon. and gallant Gentleman sitting in front of me said. He said that if a man volunteered and went to fight willingly, you had no right to shoot him. I think the case is the other way about, that if a man joins a force knowing that if he does not show bravery he will be shot, it is his own look out. The person you have not got the right to shoot is the conscript, whom you take willingly and compel to go into the field.
I was much impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper). He said that the fact that very few sentences were carried out showed that the law was not observed. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench completely answered that point. I recall to the House that 100 years ago men were hanged for sheep stealing, and for all kinds of thefts. That practice was put an end to largely by the growth of humanity, but very largely also because it was found that when the penalty was death juries would not convict. Over and over again Judges said that juries, in the face of conclusive evidence, refused to find a man guilty because they would not see a man condemned to death
for stealing a sheep. If we retain the death penalty in the Army, we shall find just the same thing in another war—if we have to go through another war; we shall find that court-martials will find a man innocent, in spite of conclusive evidence of his guilt, if he has to be condemned to death.
I wonder whether I might make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? I know that he, from motives of humanity, would be very glad if he could find some way of meeting the objections, and that he would be a happy man if he thought he could, without harm to the country, abolish the death penalty. Could not this matter be reconsidered? I quite agree that distinguished soldiers and sailors have to be consulted, but there need not he a committee; there could be a conference of men drawn from different activities and different professions—a distinguished Judge, and so on— who would reconsider the question in the light of the world as we see it to-day. I believe we shall very soon all agree that the death penalty must go the way of flogging. That is my opinion, but I may be wrong. I think that if my right hon. Friend himself would hold some sort of private conference, consulting the views of various people of distinction in different ranks of life, he would find a concensus of opinion for the abolition, or the partial abolition, of the death penalty. If a man deserts to the enemy, he has done some wilful act that comes within the system of criminal law; but if a man falls under the charge of cowardice, different considerations arise, and you can only justify shooting that man by the good example it will have on the man's comrades. I do not think that a good

example follows, and I plead for a reconsideration of the whole problem.

Colonel APPLIN: There is one other point which has not cropped up in the Debate which is probably the most important thing to consider in connection with any proposal to abolish the death penalty, and that is, what is the alternative? I have seen the alternative. I served in the late War with a very gallant corps which had no death penalty. When a man—or an officer—was considered to have let those people down a court-martial was held by the men round the camp fire at night, and sentence was passed, and the man was executed on the next occasion by his judges. That must be the alternative in any democratic Army in which the whole people are compelled to go and fight. As an old soldier, I should like to see the death penalty abolished, if it were possible. It could be possible only with an Army such as we have—the Regular Army of this country, in which the death penalty may possibly not be necessary. I believe that with our modern spirit, our modern education, and the magnificent esprit de corps of our regiments, it might be possible to abolish this death penalty without any dire results to the Army. But so long as we have to depend on conscription from the moment we come into a serious war so long shall we be obliged to impose the death penalty for cowardice in the field, not only in justice to the other men, but because they would give a very rough justice to anyone whom they suspected of letting them down.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 259.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
6.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clowes, S.
Gardner, J. P.


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Glbbins, Joseph


Amnion, Charles George
Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Baker, Walter
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barnes, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greenall, T.


Barr, J.
Cove. W G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bondfield, Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Briant, Frank
Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)


Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromley. J.
Dennison. R.
Hardie, George D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.
Hayday, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hayes, John Henry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Fenby, T. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Hills, Major John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Paling, W.
Taylor. R. A.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelvan (Middiesbro. W.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Or. Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, John James
Sinclair. Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams. David (Swansea, E.)


Lowth, T.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lunn. William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Windsor, Walter


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Wright. W.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowdon. Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Montague, Frederick
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



Morris, R. H.
Stamford, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, R. c. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Nalylor, T. E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips
Harland. A.


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major William
Harney, E. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Amery, Rt Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hawke, John Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Atholl Duchess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Herbert. S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dixcy, A. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Duckworth, John
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bennett, A. J.
England, Colonel A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine Lord (Somerset,Weston-S.-M.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Huntingfield. Lord


Birchall, Major J.,Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison.G.A.Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton)
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Blundell, F. N.
Faile, Sir Bertram G.
lliffe, Sir Edward M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fielden, E. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Finburgh, S.
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brass, Captain W.
Forrest, W.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kindersley. Major G. M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briggs. J. Harold
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gates, Percy
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Brig..Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Burman, J. B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Looker. Herbert William


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Goff. Sir Park
Lougher, Lewis


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Lumley. L. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Maclntyre, Ian


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrlan, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macmillnn, Captain H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Clayton, G. C.
Hall. Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macpherson. Rt. Hon. James I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Macqulsten, F. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.




Malone, Major P. B.
Richardson, Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson. Captain D.
Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Meller. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward. Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Mltne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Watts, Dr. T.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wells, S. R.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
White. Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wigglns, William Martin


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsl'ld.)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, John James


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Radford, E. A.
Storry-Deans, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Raine, W.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ramsden, E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wragg, Herbert


Remer, J. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Remnant, Sir James
Tasker, R. Inigo.



Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Templeton, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of military in connection with trade disputes.)

At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act the following Subsection shall be added:
The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a 6tate of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply as long as such state of emergency exists.—[Mr. Broad.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I know that what I have to say must be directed through the Chair to the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Air, but I would have preferred, and I think it would have been more appropriate, that the Home Secretary should also have been present on this occasion, because, after all, the primary function of the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Air is to recruit, equip and train men for the defence of this country and its citi-
zens against some foreign Power. I am sure that both of these Ministers would be glad to be relieved of having to see that those forces were used against an enemy at home, and although this has to come in the Debate on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, yet, when, if ever, the forces are to be used in aid of the civil authority, the Minister who will be responsible will be the Home Secretary.
There are two points of view. First of all, there is the point of view of the general community, and—if I may claim the attention of hon. Members opposite, who seem to think this the most convenient place for conversation, I will continue with my argument—the second point of view is the position of the men in the forces themselves. As far as the community is concerned, I am going to say that the use of the military forces in times of trade disputes it one of the most harmful and dangerous expedients to which any Government could resort. It creates a bad atmosphere among the great masses of our people, and there is no question about a class war, for here is the class war in operation. We have to recognise that it is only within comparatively recent years, and within my lifetime, that we have had the use of troops in industrial disputes. From the time of Peterloo, which was not an indus-
trial dispute, until 1893, there had been no occasion on which troops had been called on to fire on the civilian population of this country. Even in those days, when men were not so educated and when, perhaps, they and the masters were more brutal, unrefined and unrestrained than they are now, there was no occasion on which troops were brought into conflict with the civilian population.
We have had several occasions since then when such action has been taken. Those who look back into the records of each of these occasions can see, when they come to examine them, that those troops which had been sent to deal with a possible situation had, by the very fact of their being there, created that situation. It is a remarkable thing in every one of these cases that the very fact of the troops being there was the cause of the trouble, and that the troops had been sent there in advance of the trouble. We know that in 1893, when the men were locked out in the coalfields of Yorkshire and the troops were hurried there, it was not because we had not police forces available who could have been used to keep order if they were required, but that those police forces had been withdrawn to the Doncaster races, and it was on the request of a Noble Lord of that date, who was himself a coalowner, that those troops were sent there. The Minister sent them without having thoroughly understood what he was doing, and the very fact of them being there meant that two men were slaughtered. We had the usual whitewashing Commission, but I am going to say that the blood showed through the whitewash. There was very great significance in that, for a wave of feeling swept through the country as the result of that Featherstone business. It is a significant thing that that same year, 1893, was the year when the Independent Labour party was formed. I have in my hand a pamphlet that was written on that occasion which did a great deal of propaganda work at that time and in which, with almost uncanny prescience, the writer says:
If the doom of Liberalism be decreed by the fates, some insanity of this sort will assuredly precede the end.
That was in 1893.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are many rulings in this House that an Amendment cannot be moved as an Amendment to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act with reference to the employment of troops during trade disputes and it has only been allowed now in the form of a stipulation that the recruits should not be called upon for such service except in the case of an emergency. I do not think, in moving his Amendment, that the hon. Member can argue at any great length the way in which troops may be employed.

Mr. BROAD: I would draw attention to the latter part of the proposed Clause, because, since that original decision was given from the Chair, we have had through this House the Emergency Powers Act and this Clause would preclude the military being used in support of the civil authority except after a state of emergency had been proclaimed. In pursuance of that, I would draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for War last year, in reply, based his position on the fact that the soldier, like any other citizen, could be called in in support of the civil authorities, so that the position is rather different from what it was in those earlier days when the Ruling was given which has just been quoted by the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the position has changed at all as regards this Amendment since that Ruling was given. I think it is exactly the same as when the Ruling was given that this occasion could not be used to move an Amendment with a view to criticising the way in which troops may be used. That is exactly the question which the hon. Member is now arguing. He is arguing his Amendment on the point which has been ruled out of order.

Mr. BECKETT: The new Clause suggests that recruits should not be asked to take on certain forms of service in connection with a strike. Would my hon. Friend not be in order in submitting objections to that particular kind of service?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is moving an Amendment to the effect that recruits should not be called upon to perform certain duties during a
strike, but the hon. Member cannot argue as to the way in which troops may be used, which does not arise upon this Bill.

Mr. BROAD: I am trying to show why the troops should be relieved of this kind of duty. My new Clause deals with the possibility of troops being used to replace men in industry, and that would have a very great effect on the minds of our people, and even on the troops themselves. These young men have joined because they think the Army is a noble and worthy calling, but a great many of these men have been conscripted by the forces of unemployment and privation. But whatever the reason, I am sure none of these young men ever contemplated that they would be used to fire on their fellow workers, possibly their fathers, or their brothers, or their friends, and that is the position they are now being placed in.
We have progressed a great deal since 1893, and these young men have learned that it is much better to try and secure economic emancipation by the political emancipation which has already been won. It is a dangerous thing for the community that it should be contemplated that troops should be used against their fellow workmen. These troops are men who hope to return to industry some day after their period of service. I want to refer to the argument that the soldier, like any other citizen, is liable to be called in support of the civil authority in case of need. We all recognise that. I have myself seen occasions when civilians have gone to the assistance of the police in case of need. I have seen a case in which soldiers have gone to the assistance of the police in time of need, but they have done so as citizens, and that is a very different thing from those men being lined up in rows armed with lethal weapons to fire indiscriminately on a crowd, which is what has occurred in the past.
This is rather indicative of the mentality of a certain type of employer who thinks that a parade of force is going to cow the people in order to get them to accept any conditions their employers might offer. When aeroplanes are taken to affected areas in an industrial dispute no one denies that they are taken there for one purpose only, because they cannot be used to single out individual men, or keep them back, or surround property. If you
use any weapons from an aeroplane, whether it be a bomb or a rifle, you cannot be sure within a quarter of a mile what you are going to hit, and therefore aeroplanes in such circumstances can only be used for purposes of terrorism. I hope the Minister for Air, if he replies, will indicate any way in which the Air Force or any instrument of the Air Force can be used under such circumstances for any other purpose than that of terrorism. Therefore, whether it is the Army or the Air Force, I say that the parading of these men and despatching them to affected areas during a strike is at once calculated to inflame the minds of the people, and it produces a situation which makes the settlement of a dispute almost impossible. With the sense of order and discipline which is held by our people, and the tactful manner in which the police handle great crowds, surely there is no excuse for retaining in the hands of magistrates and local head constables the power to call on the Home Office to require the Army or the Air Force to send troops to the assistance of the civil authority.
I want to deal with one other aspect of this position. There are a certain number of people among the industrial classes who, during a time of disturbance, are ready to say, "Give them a whiff of grapeshot and that will put them in their proper place." I do not suggest that that is indicative of the frame of mind of the majority, or of a large proportion of hon. Members who sit opposite, but from the workers' point of view there are those who say that no matter what power of voting you have got, or how much you believe in constitutional methods, if the interests of the employers are affected, they will oppose the workers who stand for constitutional methods.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Member that this question cannot be discussed on this particular new Clause. The Estimates for the Army and the Air Force have nothing whatever to do with that subject.

Mr. BROAD: I should have said "except under the Emergency Powers Act." I want hon. Members to realise how dangerous a weapon this is to use, and how unfair it is to the men enlisting. The experience of the last 25 years has shown that it is unnecessary to use
this power, and I hope the Government will see their way to put in this stipulation which I have moved, so that we shall feel that it is only in case of a great emergency that an ultimate resort will be made to the armed forces of the Crown.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to second the Motion.
As a matter of fact, if I adopted the suggestion of the argument placed before the House by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper), in justifying his attitude in voting with those on this side of the House on the last new Clause, one might say, as he said, that an old law not used is of no use at all. I think we might say that so far the law for utilising soldiers or even navy men in trade disputes is gradually dying out. I have a recollection of an industrial dispute in one of the peaceful Welsh valleys during the year 1898 when there was a very great industrial dispute, and two cavalry regiments were sent to that area. The people there were law-abiding citizens, and there was no need for the troops, but the result of sending them was that it stiffened the opposition of those engaged in the dispute, and they came to the conclusion that the Government sent troops with the intention of intimidating the men engaged in that dispute to accept unreasonable and unjust terms.
There will be common agreement on all sides of the Committee that to-day there is no country in the world where such a great mass of citizens are so law-abiding as they are in this country. The experience of last year goes to prove that there is no need to utilise troops for purposes such as they have been utilised in the past. While it may be admitted that our people are law-abiding citizens in the mass, it is not understood that the psychological effect of sending troops to districts where there is an industrial dispute, is that it makes the work of those attempting to keep the people law-abiding all the more difficult. I have had some experience in industrial disputes, and I know that nothing has stiffened more the action of those engaged in disputes than the thought that the Government are taking sides against the workers and endeavouring to intimidate them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in arguing in that
way on this new Clause, and I hope he will confine his remarks to what is contained in the Clause.

Mr. HALL: I was endeavouring to point out that there was no longer any need for a recruit to carry out duties which the recruits who formerly joined the Army had to do, and this new Clause would give the recruit the right to decide whether he should be called upon to engage in an industrial dispute in the way in which he has had to do in the past. I only wish to say that the experience of last year proved conclusively that the civil authorities are quite competent to deal with any matter arising in the course of an industrial dispute. Last year we had eight months of industrial strife, and on no single occasion was it necessary for the civil authorities to apply-to the War Office to send troops to engage or interfere in the trouble at all. As a matter of fact, I think it is where imported troops were sent that we had the greatest trouble—imported police, I mean.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Army and Air Force Annual Bill has nothing to do with where troops shall be used. The right hon. Gentleman could not reply to these questions, because I should not allow him to do so.

Mr. HALL: I am not going to attempt to pursue the argument any further, but I am at a loss to understand why the new Clause has been received in the way that it has been.

Miss WILKINSON: I should like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the exact terms of this proposed new Clause, and to ask him whether it is really not possible, and whether it is not in fact in the interest of his Department itself, to accept this Clause as it stands. It is, as you yourself, Sir, have pointed out, an extremely limited Clause. It does not apply at all in cases, such as the last mining dispute, where His Majesty has proclaimed a state of emergency, and where, even if this Clause were accepted by the Government, it would not apply. The position as it now stands is that, even in a case where no emergency has been proclaimed, that is to say, in an ordinary trade dispute, it is possible for the War Department or any of the other fighting Departments to order troops to take the places of men who are out on strike. If this proposed
new Clause be accepted, all that it will mean will be that the recruit will be told, when he joins the Army, that, except in case of emergency, he will not be ordered to take the place of a man who is out on strike.
What will be the effect if the Secretary of State for War refuses this Clause? It will mean that he will be saying to the country that, even in cases where no emergency is proclaimed, he yet is going to take power to order men to take the places of strikers if he thinks fit. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman, if he needs it, and I want to remind hon. Members,, that the case of a soldier, under his oath, is entirely different from that of an ordinary workman. If a workman is asked to take the place of a fellow workman in a dispute, he has the alternative of either obeying that order or, if he disobeys it, losing his job. It is quite a different alternative that is placed before him; he simply loses his job. The position, however, of the man under Army orders is very different indeed. If he refuses to take the place of a man who is out on strike, he is then subject, not to losing his job, not to any of the ordinary civilian penalties, but to the extreme penalties (hat may be inflicted on a soldier, even in peace time, for disobeying the orders of his superior officers. I submit that, when the average man joins the Army, he does so in order to fight the foreign enemies of his country. He is aware that when a state of national emergency has been proclaimed he may have to obey the orders of his superior officers, even if it means firing on his fellow workmen; but I do submit that, except where a state of emergency has been proclaimed, the War Office or any other fighting Department has no right to call upon that man to face such an alternative, with drastic punishment if he refuses.
This man, before he has joined the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, may have been a trade unionist of several years' standing, and I submit that a recruit who joins the Army ought to have an option in a matter like that. Then I want to ask the Secretary of State for War to consider the position of the average citizen. The working man pays taxes; the trade unionist pays taxes, just as much as anyone else., according to his income. We all pay for the Army. And
yet, if this proposed new Clause be not accepted, soldiers, sailors or Air Force men can be ordered to take part in a dispute even when no emergency is proclaimed. I would point out that this practice is frequently carried out. It is not some hypothetical case, but is a definite practice which is frequently carried out. In any coal dispute, even apart from national emergency, we arc told that naval ratings may be called in to man the pumps. In the case of power stations, if there is a strike in a power station we are told that naval ratings, or technicians from the Army, may be called in to take the place of those engaged in the dispute. It is quite easy to say that this is being done in order to prevent inconvenience to the public—that the public must be protected, and that, after that, the men and the employers can fight it out. This, again, is not a case where a national emergency has been proclaimed—I want to make that quite clear; the definite case covered by this proposed new Clause is where no national emergency has been proclaimed, but where there is merely an ordinary dispute between an employer and his workmen. There is no guarantee that, before troops are sent in, the matter will be examined, and, if the employer is found to be in the wrong—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady did quite well up to a certain point, but she is wandering from the point which this particular Clause raises, and which has merely to do with enlistment and recruiting.

Miss WILKINSON: It takes, perhaps, a little time to develop this argument, but I would respectfully submit that this proposed new Clause says:
call upon such recruit to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute;
and what I am trying to deal with is the case of an ordinary trade dispute, where no national emergency is proclaimed. If I might be allowed to develop my argument, I think you will find, Sir, that it is in order, because what I want to show is that you may have an ordinary civil dispute where no emergency is proclaimed, and yet, by the mere fact that the State has power to send in technicians to take the place of those engaged in the dispute, the War Office, or whatever other fighting De-
partment is concerned, is coming down on the side of the employer. Since all ranks pay taxes for the upkeep of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, it is surely unfair that the Minister concerned should have the power to interfere in a dispute in such a way as heavily to weight the scales on one side of a dispute. That is the point I am trying to make, and I want, therefore, to submit—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular Bill has nothing to do with the question of the way in which troops shall be used. The question as to what power the Minister has to use troops does not arise on this Bill at all. It has been constantly ruled that to argue that question is outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: While it is true that you are quite right in emphasising the personal side of the contract, I should like respectfully to ask how this matter can be discussed if we do not discuss the possibility of the recruit being called into certain trade disputes? As I understand it, the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is arguing that the recruit in certain circumstances may be called into a dispute with which he has no concern at all, and I submit that it is impossible to discuss this matter if we are debarred from referring to that question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a proper occasion for discussing how troops may or can be used, and whether they should be used in the case of trade disputes or not; but that is not on the Army Annual Bill. The hon. Member may not know the history in regard to Amendments in this form. Rulings have often been given that to discuss the use of troops in trade disputes is outside the scope of the Army Annual Bill, and it must not be thought that, by allowing this Clause to be moved, a discussion may take place on a side wind which would not be allowed on the main question.

Mr. LAWSON: I quite understand, Sir, the history of this question, but the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough was not discussing the question of the use of troops, but the position of the recruit in regard to a trade dispute.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady had been discussing that, and in doing so she was quite in order, but when I called her to order she was going into a series of questions which do not arise on the Army Annual Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: Further on the point of Order. It is a little difficult to catch the distinction that is made in your ruling. The proposed new Clause would provide that a recruit shall not be employed in a trade dispute except in case of emergency. The reason why that provision is put before Parliament, and the reasons why Parliament should adopt this Clause, are impossible to explain if we must not use the expression "trade dispute." I put it to you, Sir, that you are really ruling the Clause out of order, and not the discussion. I do that with the utmost humility.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is rather difficult to keep hon. Members to the Clause, because of the very narrow issue that is raised, but I really cannot allow a discussion on questions which have been constantly ruled out of order on similar occasions.

Miss WILKINSON: It is, as you say, extremely difficult to frame one's speech in such a way as to bring it within these narrow limits. I think it is really the phraseology that is concerned, rather than the spirit of what I am trying to say; but what I want to put to the Secretary of State for War is that the effect that the refusal to accept this Clause is likely to have upon recruiting. I am not going to pretend that I am an enthusiast for the right hon. Gentleman's type of recruiting, but I do want to suggest that, if he is complaining, as he is, that he is not getting the right type of recruits, he certainly is not going to get the right type if he is going to refuse a stipulation of this kind. I submit that, whether a man be in the British Army or not, he is a citizen, and, while he ought to obey his superior officers in time of war or in time of emergency, he ought not to have to forego all his citizen rights when he joins the Army. That is the position of a mercenary army, and not a citizen army such as we ought to have in a country like Great Britain.
I suggest that it is not asking too much, within the extremely narrow limits of
this Clause, to ask the Secretary of State for War, on behalf of the Government, to accept this proposal, which at least puts before the recruit the right to contract out at a time—[Laughter.] I cannot understand that extraordinary outburst. It seems to me extraordinary that there should be a wild desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to take away every decent shred of citizen rights from a man because he is put into uniform. I can quite understand the employers' attitude, which regards every trade unionist as an enemy, but, if you are going to have an Army which is paid for by every rank of the community, you have no right to use that Army to weight the balance in a trade dispute. I, therefore, submit respectfully that at the time of recruiting a soldier ought to be told that he has the right, if he desires it, not to take part in a trade dispute so long as a state of national emergency is not proclaimed. It does not affect the general strike, it does not affect any abnormal emergency—though if I had my way it would affect the general strike. I say that, merely within these narrow limits, in the case of an ordinary dispute, where a national strike is not involved, no case can be made out for not giving this right to the recruit in this matter, unless the party opposite are going to take up the position that they want the man in order to use him for their own employers' concerns, and that, I submit, is not a fair way of using the British Army.

Mr. RHYS: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but it occurred to me that the hon. Lady who has just spoken torpedoed her own argument when she emphatically declared that the British soldier was a British citizen, because I always understood it to be an elementary duty of any British citizen to uphold the law and aid the civil power in any disturbance that may take place. As I read this proposed new Clause, there is no question, and, indeed, there never could be any question, of using troops in any industrial disturbance of any sort or kind unless the situation became such that there was grave danger, not only to life, but to the very property—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is straying into paths which have already been ruled out of order.

Mr. RHYS: I must submit at once to your ruling, but I did think I was entitled to reply to the last argument which the hon. Lady put forward. I wish to emphasise once more that a recruit on joining the Army does not lose the right of British citizenship, nor, indeed, the obligations to uphold the civil power. It is nonsense, if I may say so, for hon. Members to talk about shooting down the workers. That does not arise at all. When a recruit joins the Army at the present day, he does so as a volunteer, and knowing full well what are his obligations. All of us deprecate the use of troops in any sort of industrial dispute, but I am not going to be led away further into that because I know that you, Captain FitzRoy, will call me to order.
May I make one further small point? I do not think this Clause even effects what the Movers of it desire that it should effect, because it merely refers to recruits. We might have a very interesting legal argument as to when a man ceases to be a recruit. If the hon. Lady really knew anything about Army phraseology, she would know that a man is a recruit until he has passed through his recruit drill. He then becomes a trained soldier, and we could have a very lengthy and interesting argument as to what the actual legal position of a private soldier was. There, again, I do not think, from their own point of view, it would effect what the supporters of the Clause desire, but I would like to reiterate what I started by saying, that it is the duty of every British citizen to do his duty by the civil power to uphold law and order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You, Captain FitzRoy, have had the unpleasant duty of calling every speaker on this Clause to order, but I am going to see if I can break the record by not contravening the rules of order. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down endeavoured to draw a red herring across the very reasonable arguments used on this side, by talking about a recruit only ceasing to be a recruit when he has passed his examination. This deals with a man who takes the King's shilling and joins the Army. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Clause. It is most innocuous. It gives everything he can possibly want from the point of view of the head of the Army
called upon to assist the civil power. The last paragraph of the Clause really leaves the power for preserving order in the hands of the Government unimpaired. Let us look at what happened during the General Strike last year. As regards the first part of the Clause, even when the Emergency Regulations had been passed by this House, the Territorial soldiers were asked to volunteer for duty. Although when they were enrolled under the Army Act, they were given the benefit of this option. We are passing right away from the days when recruits were used in the way which is being discussed, and which I do not want to pursue now. We have come to a new conception of the use of force on these occasions. It was not the Secretary of State for War who was held up in the General Strike as the tyrant with his grapeshot and machine guns. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was the driving force.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like other hon. Members, has gone beyond the scope of the Bill. This is not the time to discuss the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has nothing to do with this particular Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To return to the Clause. The charge has been made, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the reason for an Army is not to fight—at least for some years to come—a foreign enemy, but to beat down the workers at home. The right hon. Gentleman repudiates that charge, and if he will accept this Amendment, he will give expression to his sincerity. You are getting to-day very young men in the Army, and those young men really may not know what they are landing themselves in for—if I may use such an expression—when they join the Service. Why not let them know that it is not intended to use them in a way which we know is out of date, and have some clearly drawn-up contract as is suggested in this Clause? The Secretary of State could have settled this without practically affecting his power at all or weakening the power of the Government. This Clause would make the matter perfectly clear without weakening the present power of the Secretary of State. There is very little in it. I am quite
certain a Labour War Minister could accept it with a perfectly easy conscience, and I shall be very interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the reason for not accepting it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish this Debate had taken place upon the Estimates, because then I should have been able to deal with the points which have slipped in between the intervals when you, Captain FitzRoy, called the various speakers to order; but I conceive it would be out of order if I were to deal with most of the wild statements that have been made on the other side, for example, that the troops were used for indiscriminate firing—that was one of the phrases—upon the civil population, and that the troops were to be used for the purpose of taking the places of those on strike. I am afraid it will be out of order if I pursue that, and as I do not want to be called to order, and show such a bad example to the House, I propose to deal with the Clause, and the Clause only. The Clause is that the contract entered into with a recruit shall include a stipulation that the recruit is not to be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute. In other words, when he becomes a recruit in the Army he is to contract-out of the civil liability which rests upon every citizen of this country. That is the first effect of the Clause by itself. Its second effect is that, although it is quite clear, I admit, that there is, in certain circumstances, quite properly placed upon the Army the duty of coming to the aid of the civil power, if that duty arose, say, in a year's time, and the Amendment were accepted, there would have to be a roll call, and the recruits who signed this particular form of attestation would have to be put on one side, and could not be used for that duty, while the other soldiers would have to be put on the other side, and could be so used. That ridiculous position would arise from the acceptance of this Clause. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman can realise why it is quite impossible to accept it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman completely missed the point of the Amendment. When you want the soldiers to carry out
their ordinary duties as civilians, you can do what you did last year, and call for volunteers. You did it with your Territorials, and you can do it to-day with your troops. There is no practical difficulty at all.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order. I am precluded, I fancy, from following the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the question of whether I could call upon Territorials to volunteer for duty. I purposely refrained from going into that, and it does not seem fair to raise it, unless I am in order in replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman. He is not easily caught, and I do not think I can catch him. I will not follow that line, but I want to lake his other points about the duty of the soldier as a civilian. I repeat that this Clause is only bringing our modern practice in this country—and I hope it will remain our practice—of not using the troops in this kind of way. We rely on civilians. The great boast during the General Strike last year was that not a shot was fired. I am very glad it was not. The right hon. Gentleman misses the whole point.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to put another point of view. I do not think any Clause like this would have been brought forward had we on this side, and those we represent, had a sense of trust, but from our last experience, as recently as the coal stoppage, when we were told that the Emergency Regulations were to fall equally on all classes, and when we found the Home Secretary protecting the coal owner and the Noble Lord—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was not here when I called hon. Members on his side to order.

Mr. HARDIE: I was trying to give a reason why it was necessary to have this in order to give protection against people who made promises and did not carry them out, and were so cowardly that they would not answer questions in the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not bring into this discussion arguments that have already been ruled out of Order.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: This Clause is not con fined entirely to dealing with these industrial affairs. The reason for a new-Clause like this is the distrust that has been aroused as the result of experience. Can you imagine a son being called upon to shoot his father? Do those hon. Members who are opposing this new Clause realise what an industrial dispute is? I can remember, as a boy, when the military were called out at Blantyre in an industrial dispute.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of calling out the military in such circumstances is not in this Bill at all, and it is quite out of order to discuss whether the military should be called out or not.

Mr. HARDIE: I am referring to trade disputes in which the military are called in. Here, in this new Clause, we are told about the use of the military in trade disputes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is quoting the marginal note, but that has nothing to do with the Clause we are discussing.

Mr. HARDIE: But the Clause we are discussing deals with the entrance of recruits and, in the case to which I am referring, you had young men who could not get work going in as soldiers to Hamilton Barracks, and they were called out and told that they were to shoot their fathers and brothers. I hope the right hon. Gentle-man the Secretary of State for War will see that something is done to avoid that kind of thing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to stress the point that this question also applies to the Air Force. The most important thing in the Air Force, and the principal difference between it and the Army, is that the Air Force is the more mechanised of the two. The great need of the Air Force is for highly-skilled mechanics. Look at the effect on recruiting if such highly-skilled men are told that it will be one of their duties, if they are electricians, to work dynamos and so on if there be a trade dispute in the electrical trades. While nothing would be lost to the Air Force by acceptance of the new Clause, you would entice into that force the type of man you badly want at present, while
now you are having to take young boys and train them at immense cost to the State.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must point out that the Air Force is not affected by this new Clause in any way whatsoever.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg pardon. The Air Force was men-

tioned by an hon Member and I thought it was included.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He was out of order, but I cannot be expected to rise to points of Order every time an hon. Member is out of order.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 282.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[8.6 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotncrhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J,


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy. T.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle. Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker. John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Cove. W. G.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.?
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Weliock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Glliett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Berry, Sir George
Buckingham, Sir H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Campbell. E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blundell, F. N.
Carver. Major W. H.


Astbury. Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atkinson, C.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Briant, Frank
Chapman, Sir S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briggs, J. Harold
Clarry, Reginald George


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Clayton, G. C.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.


Bennett, A. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Cookerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt.A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remnant, Sir james


Cooper, A, Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison,G. A.CIark(Midi'n & P'bl's)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)
Ropner, Major L.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouthy)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank.Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davidson, Major-Genoral Sir john H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Duckworth John
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


England, Colonel A,
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'& Kinc'dine, C.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fairfax, Captain J, G.
Looker, Herbert William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Storry- Deans, R.


Fenby, T. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fermoy Lord
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maclntyre, I.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Tasker, R. lnigo


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Captain H.
Templeton, W. P.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thom, Lt.Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, F. c (Aberdeen, South)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Malone. Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A'.L.(Klngston-on-Hull)


Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grace, John
Merriman, F. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grant, Sir J. A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wateon, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Grenfell, Edward C- (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
William0s, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hall,Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds.Centrl.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harland, A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harrison, G. J. C
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Withers, John James


Hawke, John Anthony
Owen, Major G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hills, Major John Waller
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wragg, Herbert


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Maryiebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Radford. E. A,



Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, W.



Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Margesson.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 76 of Army Act.)

In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment) after the word "persons," where that word first occurs, there shall be in-
serted the words "of not less than eighteen years of age," and after the word "may," where that word first occurs, there shall he inserted the words "upon production of his birth certificate."—[Mr. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope this Clause will have rather more consideration than the other Amendments which have come from this side, because we ask for no concession whatever on the part of the Government or their supporters. All that we ask is that they shall take, in common decency, the ordinary measures which any employer or employe making a contract must observe, to see that the bona fides of the agreement are correct on both sides. Last year the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Captain King), in speaking to a similar Amendment, made the astonishing statement that he did not want to have it proved that these boys were 18 years of age, because there were boys coming from families with military records who, -with the consent of their parents, deli berately lied and deceived the recruiting authorities as to their age.

It being a quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) ACT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Board of Guardians (Default) Act is being administered in a partisan and bureaucratic manner, elected guardians being superseded without recourse to any public inquiry, and a Report on the alleged actions and policy of the elected guardians for the Chester-le-Street Union being officially published without affording to those guardians an opportunity of rebutting such allegations before an impartial tribunal, conduct which, in the opinion of this House, is contrary to a sense of decency and elementary justice; and this House declares that the Act, being subversive of the principles of local self-government. ought to be repealed.
Hon. Members will have had an opportunity of reading the Motion and thinking of it and making up their minds where they stand in regard to it. I see one or two newspapers are making the comment that I am dragging behind me the whole of the Labour party much against their will. Far from that being the case, the party, so far as I know, and I am sure I speak for everyone concerned, are unanimously behind the
Motion. It was not chosen by me as an individual, because I represent a Scottish seat, and in this question Scotland is not so intimately concerned as other parts of the country, but the party felt that, in view of the outrage on the local guardians, the fact that this charge had been made and the way it had been made and the way these men have been misrepresented throughout the country, they ought at the first opportunity to challenge the Minister of Health on the Floor of the House of Commons, and it is because we felt that, far from being ashamed of anything the Chester-le-Street guardians have done, far from being disdainful of them, on the other band we are proud of them, that we come here on the first available opportunity and ask that a public inquiry should be held and that the blame should be put in the right quarter without fear and without favour. We have nothing to hide. No one, I think, disputes, whether Tory, Liberal or Labour, the object for which this Act was brought into being. It was because in certain. poverty-stricken districts the Labour movement had gained control. All would have been well in all those districts had those poor people not changed their political convictions. They have not done anything wrong. All they have done is to change their political convictions from Liberal and Tory to being Labour. When they changed their political complexion they committed another fearful outrage. It is not sufficient for people to change their political convictions. They even went further. They outraged things even worse than that. They elected men who held Labour opinions and who, unfortunately, did not change their opinion when they were elected to the board of guardians. If they had altered their views, they might have got a seat on the Electricity Board or been invited to Buckingham Palace, but because they have not, they must be superseded and suppressed.
Of course this action was only taken in respect to three boards, but that is because they felt that other boards have not acted quite in this way. I have no doubt that if the other poor districts change their political opinions they will be suppressed. I noticed the report of a speech by a Member of the Government Front Bench who deplored this growth of
Labour opinion in local authorities and said the Conservative party will have to watch or else Labour will get control of the town councils as well, the inference obviously being that if Labour gains control of the town councils and continues to act as Labour men should, they too will be suppressed if they dare to carry out their opinions. In other words, local democracy is a grand thing, the right to vote and the right to hold Labour views is a good thing in itself but it is a criminal thing to hold those views and to practise them. This is what the Chester-le-Street Board, the Welsh Board and the West Ham Board will be convicted for if they are convicted to-night, not that they have done wrong but merely that they have held and practised Labour opinions. Even here the Minister of Health could hardly be fair to his opponents. The report was put out that the Minister of Health was so anxious to create prejudice against these men that he could not wait until the public or the House of Commons had the report but he must get it into two Tory newspapers in order to create as much misrepresentation and prejudice as possible before it came to the House of Commons at all. Even this House of Commons was not prepared to see its Parliamentary procedure so outraged.
Even at the worst, what is the crime charged against Chester-le-Street? Is there any charge made in any quarter of the House that these men have lined their pockets? Have they imitated certain people who lined their pockets out of the Marconi business? Has any one of the guardians been made richer because of these doings? Have they imitated the war profiteer by making money out of the peculiar situation thus created? Not a single person, Liberal, Tory or Labour, much as they may accuse this board of guardians, can say any of these men have added one penny to their pocket because of their action. They may have been misguided, they may have done wrong, they may be even revolutionary persons, but no one has yet charged them with reaping a single penny profit from the work they carried out. They have not had a single penny themselves. What is the charge against them? The charge is that, acting in the capacity of guardians, they decided to be a little more generous to the poor people than the Minister of Health thought they
should be. That is the worst charge against them. There is no question of personal aggrandisement, no question of making money for themselves; just the charge that they thought they would be a little more generous to the poor than the Minister of Health was prepared to be. Before they were superseded, conferences were held between the Minister of Health and the local board of guardians. They asked the Minister what he would do, and the only statesmanlike suggestion that he could make was to cut down the relief, lower the scale, and to make the conditions of the poor people worse than before. That was the only suggestion that he could make to these poor men. Poor themselves but having a fellow feeling for poverty, they refused to lower the scale of relief, and they had to be superseded.
What is the scale? At the outset the report says that they do not wish to go back into previous events, but that they wish to confine themselves to happenings between the 1st May and the 30th August, 1926, yet anyone reading the report will find that of the nine or 10 pages two or three of the pages are taken up with events in 1920, 1924, 1925, although they state, that they wish to confine themselves to what happened between the 1st May, 1926, and the end of that year. To get a ease they had to search back long before that particular period. What is the outrageous crime which the superseded guardians have committed? According to the report, in May, 1926, they gave to a man and his wife 25s. a week, to children up to 14 years of age, 5s. a week, and to a child over 14, but unable to find work, 7s. 6d. a week. A single lad got 128. a week, and there was an allowance of 2s. 6d. for coal and for rent if wanted, with a maximum for the whole household of 55s. a week.
The maximum amount that could be paid was 55s. a week, and this is the crime which the Chester-le-Street guardians have committed. I do not know how comparisons work out, but as a Member of this House I am possibly, in many respects one of the poorest Members. I have my salary of £400 a year and I have never added to it one penny piece since I came to this House. I live on my £400 a year; I keep a home as best I can in Glasgow, and live as
best I can when I have to be here, and I find that with an income of £400 and without a family to keep, I have to be extremely careful to make ends meet. Yet a working man is expected to keep a family and maintain himself, his wife, and family in bodily comfort on an income of 55s. a week. The emergency scale which is applied to the wives of locked-out miners enabled the wife of a locked-out miner to receive 15s. a week, and 5s. was allowed for a child. After the 30th August that was reduced.
Then comes the new Board, with their economy. They did not make a single penny of saving in official salaries or in administration. Every penny of the savings came from lowering the poor relief. The new Board said, "25s. a week for a man and wife! It is disgusting for this wealthy country to pay 25s. a week. What a shocking disgrace." We may find £60,000 for a duke and his wife to go abroad, but to find 25s. a, week for a miner and his wife is a shocking disgrace, and must be stopped. Along came the new Board with their reductions, and they condemned every man and woman, who are equally as good as any Duke, Prince or King, to live on a reduced amount. "Twenty-five shillings a week! Far too much! This country cannot afford it."
The country can afford battleships and aeroplanes. It can afford every mechanism for war, but it cannot afford 25s. a week for a man and his wife to live on. Therefore, the allowance for man and wife was reduced to 23s. a week. The widower with children had 18s., and each child is reduced from 5s. a week to 2s. a week. At election times the Tory party say, "You must vote against the Socialists or you will ruin your home life". They may say now, "Vote for the Socialists. We value home life at 2s. a week per child." That is the extent of their patriotism. That is Toryism. They say, "Look at the Clyde group. They love every country but their own." It so happens that I have never been from my constituency longer than 14 days since I was elected, but during that time I have read of almost every member of the Tory party being in France or every country but his own. I love my country so well that I devote my time to it.
Under the emergency scale, the wife of the locked-out miner got 12s. a week. Now, they say: "12s, a week for a woman. She is a fine woman. She can breed soldiers for us for the front, but she is the wife of a locked-out miner, and 12s. is too much. Therefore,, we will make it 8s." They expect a woman to live on 8s. a week, with 2s. a week for a child, and a maximum of 30s. That is the new scale of relief. I know that some people will say that it is enough or all that the country can afford. I would point out to those who say that we love other countries better than our own, that in nine weeks this House spent £900,000, according to its last estimate, in defending or in an alleged defence of 9,000 British citizens in Shanghai. In other words, if the Chester-le-Street people could get a boat and remove themselves thousands of miles to Shanghai, each person would be worth £100 per week, in addition to having a British soldier ready to fight for him: but if he remains in Chester-le-Street, the value of his wife is 12s. a week. Shanghai and Chester-le-Street ! One of the crimes committed by the late board of guardians was that they paid single men 12s. a week. A terrible crime! During the War it was a case of "single men first." Now it is a case of "single men must be starved." That is the condition into which Toryism has got us to-day.
I want to compare one more set of figures. The worst week the ex-Chester-le-Street guardians had was in August, and on 14th August they paid out £11,745 to nearly 41,000 people. Analyse those figures. It means that in that week the superseded board of guardians paid 6s. a week to each person in receipt of relief either in money or in kind, or, in other words, 5½. a day. That was the total amount of relief paid in the very worst week during the whole lock-out. The Labour party in this Motion to-night say that, so far from apologising for the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians, they did no more than they were justly entitled to do for the poor. The guardians considered that they were responsible for seeing that every person had at least the minimum requirements in the shape of food and necessary shelter; and they acted on that. Therefore, they have no need to apologise. It is true that they gave a little preference to trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS:.
"Hear, hear !"] Yes, and the same tiling has been practised by my own parish council for the last 30 years.
What is done in my own constituency? If you are a member of the Ancient Order of Shepherds, or any other friendly society or any trade union, and have been putting by a few shillings for sickness or unemployment, you are not penalised. The parish council in my constituency have taken this line for years in respect to members of trade unions and friendly societies. They do not penalise them. And this practice has been defended by Tories, to their credit, but now when the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians carry out an ordinary humane practice and say that men ought not to be penalised because they have put by a few shillings in a trade union or a friendly society we are told that it is a great crime. We are asking in our Motion for a public inquiry. We heard a great deal about inquiries during the Campbell case. We are asking that these men who are charged shall have an opportunity of putting their case. In the auditors' report it is said that grave facts are alleged against them, but it does not state what these charges are, and, therefore, in order to give this board of guardians the same chance as the worst criminal would got, that is, the chance of a public trial, where they can put their case and have it examined, we bring forward this Motion and hope that the House of Commons, with its reputation for fairness, will pass it unanimously. If the House does not, it will show to the country that the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians have nothing to hide, but that the Tory party fear publicity on the matter.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for putting this Motion down and giving me an opportunity of speaking on behalf of men who have never yet had an opportunity of speaking for themselves. Charges have been levelled against the ex-guardians of Chester-le-Street. Sensational statements have been made, and legal gentlemen have used their opportunity of enlarging upon these charges. The Minister of Health and his Parlia-
mentary Secretary have made speeches in which they have alleged all these charges, knowing quite well that the people concerned have not had an opportunity of making a statement. The members of the ex-Board of guardians and the appointed guardians were moving about in and out of the same building, but they were never informed by the appointed guardians that charges were to be made against them. They were never informed that a report was to be made. The first they heard of it was when they saw the announcement in flaring posters in their own neighbourhood, and as a Britisher I submit that I could do nothing less than support and speak for the late board of guardians in such circumstances as these.
What is the deduction we have to make from a situation like this? Surely a code of honour of our opponents, say nothing of this House generally, is that if they make charges against men, elementary British justice would imply that they should inform them and give them an opportunity of speaking for themselves. In the humblest gathering in Great Britain that would have been done, to say nothing of this great Legislative Assembly. By the line that has been taken by Ministers opposite I have been forced step by step to the conclusion that there is a certain standard of honour among gentlemen, but that when you are dealing with working-class men and women of humble origin you can use any means, however dirty they may be. The fact is that the Guardians (Default) Act has proved in practice to have placed the appointed guardians above the law. They can use State money to write reports on a subject which has nothing to do with the work for which they are paid, and to make statements slandering people in the knowledge that these people cannot take advantage of a recourse to the ordinary means of defending themselves.
I learn from certain hints in Conservative newspapers that the Minister of Health is going to make a statement to-night as to the results of the investigation by the Public Prosecutor. I shall be very pleased to hear it. Either let us have the statement of the Public Prosecutor or let us have an inquiry. I do not mind telling the right hon. Gentleman that while, by the very nature of their calling, elevated as they may be,
British judges are not disposed to bias on the part of the average common worker or trade unionist in particular, I certainly say this, and the Chester-le-Street Guardians say it, that they will receive more justice and decent treatment from a court of law in this country than they will receive from the Tory Government. What are the facts connected with this business? The right hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Minister. He is Minister of Health, but he is a Conservative. [Laughter.] This is evidently a very amusing thing to hon. Members opposite, but it is not amusing to very humble men and women who in a selfless way in sad and depressing circumstances have given their services for years and have now been condemned without even ordinary elementary British justice. Is it not an amusing thing? The right hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Minister. He appoints three Conservative guardians— all three 'Conservatives. They make use of Conservative newspapers and only of Conservative newspapers. So we have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman has not been acting as a Minister of the Crown, but has been acting as an agent of the Conservative headquarters in order to suit the Conservatives in Durham.
This is what happens: The local newspapers complain that they have not been allowed even to attend meetings or to have regular interviews with the appointed guardians. But we read in articles in the "Morning Post" some weeks ago that that paper has had freedom of access. When the question was asked about premature publication the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that premature publication had taken place but he has never yet expressed a word of regret for that violation of the constitutional rights of this House, and when he is asked if he is going to make an inquiry he says "No." I suggested that he did not make an inquiry because he knew how it all took place. The fact is that premature publication was given to the Report by the appointed guardians to the "Newcastle Journal "and the "Morning Post," and they, maybe to cover their tracks, distributed certain parts of it. So, when we know that there is a Conservative Minister of Health with three Conservative appointed guardians
who are in close touch with Conservative newspapers, we are well within bounds in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has not been acting as a Minister of the Crown, and that the Guardians (Default) Act has been used for other purposes even than those which this House intended when the Act was passed.
But I will make this admission: The Chester-le-Street Guardians have not been the only victims in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been one of the victims. It will be within the memory of the House that within two or three days of the sensational statements in the Report, it was announced in the Press that seven areas, including 64 unions, called the black areas, were to have the same treatment applied to them as Chester-le-Street. The right hon. Gentleman repudiated that statement. What it means is that the black areas business has been used to torpedo the right hon. Gentleman's own beloved Poor Law Reform Bill, and that the appointed guardians were acting in harmony with the reactionary forces of the "Morning Post" and aiming as much at the right hon. Gentleman's Poor Law Reform Bill as at the Chester-le-Street Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman has to rise in his place to-night and defend the guardians, appointed by himself, who have been in close touch with the very forces that have been acting against him. Surely he has dug a pit and fallen into it himself.
I want to draw attention to another point. This Report is supposed to deal with the period from 30th August to 31st December, 1926. It is true that it gives a sort of meagre financial statement on the subject, but what one looks for in vain is a single paragraph that deals with the administration during the period that the Report is supposed to cover. What the Report does is to deal with the administration of the ex-guardians from 1923 to 1926. That means, and the right hon. Gentleman had better note it, that the period they deal with has been investigated by his own auditors and his own auditors examined the minutes. They did not analyse the accounts only; they analysed the minutes of the guardians that are complained of in this Report. They did more than that. They had not only an ordinary audit, but they had an. extraordinary audit. So that the criticism is not merely of the guardians but
against the right hon. Gentleman's official auditors. I shall be very interested to see what will happen. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to defend his auditors against the attack of the appointed guardians, or is he going to defend his appointed guardians and leave the attack upon his official auditors unanswered? It does not matter what happens. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if he does what hon. Gentlemen opposite want him to do, if he goes into Court against the Chester-le-Street Guardians, his official auditors will stand there with the guardians, and the right hon. Gentleman himself will not be very far off.
The House will understand the very grave things that have been said during the past few weeks. It will take some time to deal with them. It is generally understood that these charges apply to the whole union of Chester-le-Street, and that they are all substantiated in the minutes. I hope the House notes that fact: the assumption is that these charges apply to the whole union of Chester-le-Street, and that they are substantiated in every respect by the minutes. The person mainly responsible for that idea was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. There are those who were in the House on 1st March. when the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement. They will remember that I intervened, and I did so because I knew that the hon. Gentleman was making misstatements. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Members will find that in this Report the proceedings of the guardians themselves were certainly of a very remarkable character…The guardians themselves, I understand, arranged that on the occasion and at the time when people received Poor Law relief a collection should be taken up for the Poor Law guardians themselves.
Now that is plain from the OFFICIAL REPORT. Then I intervened and in his reply to me the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said:
All the matters which I have quoted are quotations from the official minute books of the old board of guardians.
Then I said:
The hon. Member has made statements of opinions expressed by guardians which have nothing to do with the minute book.
The OFFICIAL REPORT continues:
Sir K. WOOD:…The quotations which I have made to-night in connection
with the position of men in relation to their unions and matters of that kind…are quotations from the minute books of the old board of guardians."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1927; col. 332, Vol. 203.]
As the House will see that includes the collection for the guardians. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Read it again.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Read it straightforwardly.

Mr. LAWSON: The Parliamentary Secretary as I have already pointed out said quite distinctly:
The guardians themselves, I understand, arranged that on the occasion and at the time when people receive Poor Law relief a collection should be taken up for the Poor Law guardians themselves.
Then he added:
All the matters which I have quoted are quotations from the official minute books of the old board of guardians.
[HON. MEMBERS: "That was not quoted."] Surely hon. Members are not going to express doubt that the hon. Gentleman had in mind his general statement when he said:
All the matters which 1 have quoted are quotations from the official minute books of the old board of guardians.
Surely that is plain enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] As a matter of fact, the matter with regard to the collection by the guardians is not on the minute books at all.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Hear, hear!

Mr. LAWSON: Even the report of the appointed guardians says so, but the Parliamentary Secretary said it was in the minutes. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] It is a matter of opinion. The OFFICIAL REPORT will decide. At any rate, I am prepared to be judged by the OFFICIAL REPORT in this matter. As a matter of fact, these charges do not apply to the whole union at all. They apply to the district of Birtley, that is, to one-third of the whole union and they do not apply even to the whole of that district. They apply to one parish out of 21.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is not that good enough?

Mr. LAWSON: I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman's sense of fairness at any rate. I submit that the general impression which has been made in this
House and in the country and which has been supported by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary is that these charges apply to the whole of the guardians of the union while the fact is that, in actual operation, they only apply to one parish in 21 and the charges themselves are untrue. Take this matter of the collections for the guardians. Here is what is said in the appointed guardians' report about that matter:
At Birtley the relief was paid out every Friday at the local Picture Hall in the Cooperative Society's building. When the recipients went out of the hall they had to pass near the exit a table at which sat or stood members of the local unemployed organisation (four in particular, but occasionally others). Each recipient passing was asked to remember the local guardians, and a great majority contributed money to these men.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful!"]
None of the guardians who lost their employment in the mining industry during the dispute has applied for relief.
9.0 p.m.
That means, if it means anything at all, that the guardians during the time of the lock-out were maintained by contributions paid by those who 9.0 p.m. were receiving relief during that period. As a matter of fact that cannot be true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the very simple reason that all relief was paid not in money but in kind. Is it suggested that the guardians collected vouchers from these people? So I say this is totally untrue. Of course we know where it comes from. I can tell the House that the remarkable thing about Conservatism in Durham and in the North of England generally is that it seems to have run to seed. It does not seem to have anyone to put its case. Our experience for years has been that it has been dependent upon a kind of scandal-mongering of which this is an instance. I am not going to evade anything, because I confess that I should not countenance this kind of thing and should not defend it if it took place. I therefore want to tell all the facts in so far as I have been able to get to know them. I submit that if the appointed guardians before writing this report, had done what the Minister's official auditors did—held an inquiry and given the old guardians a chance of speaking and of explaining anything that came up-they would not have written this
report at all. As far as I can investigate the matter there is a rumour to this effect —that in 1925 the unemployed in Birtley, not connected with the unemployed organisation of Great Britain—they are not allied with the Labour party and are not affiliated—stood on one or two occasions, or sat if you like, and took the money from their affiliated representatives. It will be said that is only my statement; but the House merely has the word of the appointed guardians on the other side. The House may say that mine is an ex-parte statement. I submit that upon this grave matter which has been sent abroad through all the country, and throughout the world, I am afraid to the detriment of this country, there is sufficient evidence in the statement which I make, after investigation, to justify submitting this matter to a public inquiry. That is the least that can be done. Take the question of the prosecutions. The report says they prosecuted 24 persons. [An HON. MEMBER: "In one day?"] Yes, and the only 24 that were prosecuted, but, as a matter of fact, the old guardians, on the 11th August, took the first steps towards prosecuting the first four, and the ex-guardians, before they finished—it is recorded on the minutes— were the people who took steps to prosecute the 24. It had nothing to do with the appointed guardians at all, and they have not seen fit to acknowledge that fact in their general statement.
I am sorry the time is so limited, because nothing would give me greater delight than to go into all these questions. The question of the difference between the financial and non-financial members is one of the great things that has been raised, and the amazing thing is that the chairman of these appointed guardians, who makes a great song about this, is a lawyer. Everybody knows that lawyers do not make any distinction between financial and non-financial members. They have not been called "the devil's own" for nothing, and so they raise this question of the difference between financial and non-financial members. I wish I had time to deal with it. Everybody in this House knows very well that in the mining districts trade unionism has played quite a different part from that which it has played outside the mining districts. For instance, it enters more intimately into the people's own life.
The Durham Miners' Association from 1921 to 1926 paid no less than £2,600,000 in support of the people and in relief of rates, and our own unions in our district did something in addition to that. When the people came who were members of the Durham Miners' Association and asked for relief, instead of being given the regular sum, they were given the same as the trade unionists got who had got 108. or 5s. or whatever it might be from the Durham Miners' Association. They said they had not received the money, and so inquiries had to be made, and it was found that they had not paid their dues and, therefore, because of their own thriftlessness, they had not been paid the rate of money that other people had been paid. That is the explanation. It may be good or bad, but I submit that at least the people who wrote this Report ought to have called for an explanation of the situation.
Take the conspiracy charge. The suggested conspiracy charge is not a charge against the men concerned. Will the House believe this, that when they -went to consult eminent counsel, the appointed guardians did not take any of the charges that have been scattered about? They did not take a single charge that is down in this Report. If they did, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to publish the case that was stated to counsel. A conspiracy was suggested, not because of what they did first, but against the present general interpretation of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment. It was a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman's own interpretation of that judgment. I should like to have spent some time dealing with the conditions that these men and women have had to face. I should like to have shown, that time and again, I raised the conditions in regard to the training of ex-service men, who were sent to Birtley, and asked that they should be sent back to the areas from which they came. The Minister of Health at that time refused even to give them the fare to go back to their areas and thus save them from becoming a charge on the guardians.
I will conclude by saying that our people in the Chester-le-Street Division, our ex-guardians, have faced an appalling state of things during the past few years, and they have been condemned without having been given an opportunity of making an explanation of the
charges brought against them. If there is any choice at all, I want to say to this House that I am proud of the men and women who have been assailed during the past few months. Decent men and good men have been assailed always in the life of this country and of other countries. There was a time when they had to face the ex-service men, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House had to face ex-service men in a spirit of generosity because of the service they had given and because they dared not do any other. They had to give these men a decent living, but now the time has come, now that we arc getting away from the War, when we can crib, cabin and cut them down and starve them. I think our people, our guardians in the Chester-le-Street Division, are worthy of defence on the grounds that I have stated, but, as far as I am concerned, they would be defended on the main ground that they have, in so far as they could, given justice to the mass of the people, who seldom receive justice from the hands of their opponents.

Major ROPNER: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "House", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
the grave irregularities and partisan nature of the administration of the late board of guardians of the Chester-le-Street Union, as disclosed in the Report on their proceedings, constitute a serious menace to the decency and elementary justice which should be observed in local government, and that in putting into force, in the ease of this union, the powers of the Board of Guardians (Default) Act the Minister of Health has acted in accordance with the intentions of Parliament and in the interest of purity of local administration.
Although I admire the effrontery of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in calling attention to the administration of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, with special reference to the position in the Chester-le-Street Union, I find the greatest difficulty in discovering any point in his argument to which to reply. He appeared entirely to fail to realise the seriousness and the gravity of the charges which are made against the superseded Chester-le-Street Guardians. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has also given me nothing to which to reply. He has made a series of counter-allegations against the appointed guardians and
against the Minister of Health, and very apologetically, during the last few sentences of his speech, he pretended to deal with some of the allegations which are made against the suspended guardians.
If hon. Members opposite are anxious that their ease should be put before an impartial tribunal, let me remind them that the most impartial tribunal to which they could possibly present their case is instructing public opinion in the country, and this Debate, if it serves no other purpose, will, at any rate, have served to advertise the impossibility or, at any rate, the apparent inability of Socialists to retain when in office their professed ideals of political morality.
In proposing this Amendment, my hon. and learned Friend and myself hope to show, not only the moral and political dishonesty of the Chester-le-Street Guardians and the tyrannical bureaucracy of a Socialist executive, but also the very great danger which is facing this country through boards of guardians with Socialist majorities attempting to demoralise and pauperise the people; to destroy our present economic system by piling up the burden of rates and the burden of debt upon industry; and ultimately to render impossible all forms of local or national democratic government by calculated corruption and by the advent of financial ruin. Anyone who has studied with any degree of attention the efforts of the Minister of Health to assist the Chester-le-Street Guardians before they were superseded—the patient and painstaking efforts of the Minister —can have no doubt that he was fully justified, in appointing a certain gentleman on the 30th August last year—and later on certain other gentlemen—to take the places of the elected guardians.
Again and again the elected guardians have been assisted by the Minister on a definite promise to reform their ways. I will go briefly through the history of the negotiations of the Ministry of Health with the superseded guardians. Early in the negotiations a deputation was received by the Minister of Health, and promised, as a condition of receiving further assistance, to make a reduction in the scale of relief. They gave that very definite assurance to the Minister, but they did nothing of the sort. They went back to Chester-le-Street
and the question was balloted on by the miners. In December, 19Z5, the guardians again found themselves without funds. Further financial assistance was again required, and an undertaking was given again that there would be a reduction In the scale of relief. Not many weeks afterwards, I am not certain that it was not a few days afterwards, it was ascertained that a higher scale of relief than that which they had promised to apply was being automatically applied by the guardians. In June, 1926, a further deputation gave further undertakings to the Minister of Health and again broke faith, granting relief at variance with the assurances they had given. In July,, 1926, the guardians' treasurer refused financial assistance. The Minister of Health made an offer which was conditional on the suspension of unlawful relief. A promise was given that unlawful relief would cease, but only a short time afterwards three relieving officers were suspended for refusing to grant that relief.
It is impossible for a Minister to advance money to guardians who continually prove their unreliability and untrust-worthiness. Promises were broken time after time, and, as I have said, no one who has studied the question with any attention can doubt that the Minister was fully justified in superseding the elected guardians. So much, though quite briefly, for the direct dealings of the guardians with the Minister of Health.
I want to draw attention to the somewhat sensational tenets of applied Socialism as shown at Chester-le-Street. Every Member will no doubt have read the White Paper issued by the Ministry of Health. They will remember that there were 59 elected guardians, 47 of whom belonged to the Labour party, leaving 12 independent members. We on this side feel justified in asking if hon. Members opposite do not think it is contrary to a sense of decency and elementary justice that the guardians should exclude the independent members, and become a committee of a political party administering public funds and stifling the voice of the political minority? From time to time we hear plaintive appeals from hon. Members opposite on behalf of the rights of minorities. Here is a startling instance of the suppression of a political minority which does not agree with the-views of hon. Members opposite.
Another novel, and as we think contemptible, principle, is the spending of public funds with only one's political supporters. I will not attempt to deal at great length with the accusations that are made, but I want hon. Members opposite to realise their gravity and seriousness. There was discrimination against applicants for relief, a complete denial of the principle of impartial public administration. Quite apart from the maladministration of the Chester-le-Street Guardians, two questions of very great importance are raised by the Motion and the Amendment. There is, first, the grave danger of Socialist efforts to demoralise the community, and there are secondly the efforts which are being made by a subversive element to undermine the authority of local government and to ruin industry by excessive rates.
I will deal quite shortly with the demoralising effect of Socialist principles on the people of this country. One of the four postulates of domocracy is a high standard both of honesty and of honour. Unless a community is morally sound, democracy must necessarily become a ghastly failure. I remember reading something which I will quote to the House:
A noble democracy is the ideal form of polity, but a corrupt democracy is the vilest and most hopeless.
Aequisitiveness is one of the most powerful instincts of the human mind. We have all heard of that noble emotion which has been described as divine discontent. It is a perfectly laudable ambition that every man and woman should wish to make his or her way in the world, that everyone should wish to see his or her children having a better start in the race of life than was possible for themselves. It was upon this acquisitive instinct which is devastating in its destructiveness when developed beyond control that the Chester-le-Street Guardians played in their endeavours to degrade and demoralise the people.
I want to give one or two more instances of the application of Socialist principles to illustrate what I mean by the demoralising effect on the people. It is mentioned in the White Paper that relieving officers were instructed to grant relief with a total disregard of the needs of those whom they were giving relief to. They were ordered to grant illegal relief as a subsidy to their wages, and
it is this calculated demoralisation of the people by maladministration of the Poor Law which raises afresh this very serious question of the pauperisation of the community. It is a very old question and one with which the Poor Law has made attempts to deal for many years. As far back as the downfall of the feudal system and the dissolution of the monastries a book was written from which I have extracted this passage:
These abbeys did but maintain the poor which they had made, for some vagrants, accounting the abbey alms their own inheritance, served an apprenticeship, and afterwards brought journey work to no other trade than begging.
Since the days described in that passage the administration of the Poor Law has been administered with alternate waves of sentiment and severity. At the end of the 18th century, as a result of a more liberal application of the Poor Law, rates rose, until by 1832 rates per head of the population amounted to no less than 20s. per head. At the end of the 19th century there was a remarkable revival of the spirit of independence which spread among the working classes of this country, owing to the more careful administration of the Poor Law. Friendly societies and building societies were formed, co-operative societies sprang into existence and trade unions grew on every hand, but the value of the de-pauperisation which was so beneficially affecting the country in those days was entirely ruined by the first growth of the Socialist party in this country. There is another quotation I should like to make and it is as follows:
Remember, you can have just as many paupers as you choose to pay for, and that to assist from the rates when application is made, just because it is made, may mean the damning of an individual's whole life to the recipient, and instead of an independent, self-restrained man, you may make him a rate-dependent creature.
Mr. Burns, a little later on stated:
Every loafer at the street corner who-lives on it says, 'Three cheers for out-relief. Out-relief means the complete prostitution and degradation of those whom we ought to raise and educate by better means.
Too much has the "dole" habit been fostered by hon. Members opposite Too much has the Socialist politician, eager for votes at any price, promised large payment of public money to those who would give him their votes. Too
often does the euphonism "social reform" cover what is neither more or less than a gigantic piece of corrupt bribery in the attempt to purchase votes of the thriftless by the promise of a raid upon the savings of the thrifty. I would ask hon. Members to remember the passage in the Report of the Ministry of Health where it is mentioned that 24 Durham miners were prosecuted in one day in attempting to get relief by bribery. The people of Durham are true and loyal citizens, but in time of great difficulty, being human beings as we are, they are not immune from the temptations which were put in their way by the Chester-le-Street guardians. There are Durham men serving in the Durham Light Infantry defending British interests and defending British men and women in Shanghai from the perils and dangers for which the Russian friends of hon. Members opposite are largely responsible. They are doing their best to look after the interests of these British people, while the home front which they have left is being sold by their Socialist pseudo friends.
The second question raised by this Debate is the enormous burden of rates upon industry. The overhead charges in the export industries of this country are so high that in many instances we have the greatest difficulty in competing in foreign markets. Next to wages, rates amount to the heaviest overhead charges. Every ton of coal which is mined in Durham or elsewhere contributes something from its cost price to medical and dental welfare, and to education and pensions. It is quite right that it should, and under Conservative administration, very largely, the expenditure on social services has multiplied by 15 times during the last 30 years. We on these benches are perfectly willing that a reasonable amount should be contributed by rates and taxes to social benefits in the country, but hon. Members opposite continually attempt to describe a vicious circle which starts in unemployment and goes round to higher rates, and then goes round still further to heavier burdens on industry, and then goes back to the beginning and starts with more unemployment and more rates and further burdens on industry and so on.
The wild extravagance of the Socialist party and their continual efforts to borrow at the expense of the community, placing a burden on industry which even now it is hardly able to bear, can only bring financial bankruptcy and ruin to this country.
We ask this House to express the opinion that it is not prepared to watch the Socialists, whether in local or national administration of the country, attempting to demoralise and pauperise the people. Secondly, we ask the House to say that it is not willing to stand by and see almost certain financial ruin brought to this country by the wild extravagance advocated by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. GRACE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it will be agreed that local government becomes impossible unless those who govern and those who are governed are prepared to act honestly. The whole history of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians, right up to August of last year, when they were removed by the Minister of Health and were prevented from doing any further injury to their district, shows that there has been a deep conspiracy to make use of the machinery of local government in order to carry out political aims which are quite outside the ambit of local government. These men, unlike the description which has been given of them by the Mover of this Resolution, have not made mistakes out of a humanitarian desire to help people in distress, but out of a desire to adopt a deliberate policy which has always been advocated by hon. Members opposite, namely, work or maintenance on full trade union wages.
That is what they have advocated. That is the road to the Labour party's millennium and they pursue it in this way. They fix a sum for wages which they say should be paid even if the industry is not in a position to pay it. they then tell the employers, "If you do not pay these wages the Government will have to subsidise you and pay the difference." If the Government will not subsidise them, then they are threatened with the most appalling results. Hon. Members who this afternoon were so anxious about humanitarian principles in the Army were in May of last year prepared to use the
most frightful means by way of a general strike to starve all the people in this country.
What do we find? In August of last year when these guardians were removed and three other guardians were put in their place, this particular board of guardians was in debt to the tune of £185,000.
Having tried their policy of striking and forcing the ratepayers in this district to pay as much money as they had got, they afterwards borrowed money from the bank. Having exhausted that source, they then applied to the Minister of Health for loans, and having got as much as they could from him, they found themselves in August last in an absolute state of bankruptcy. I know the Socialist policy is based upon idealism, but when you apply it you find the people are reduced to a state of slavery once again. The Mover of the Amendment has referred to the conduct of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians when they appointed on 6th May, at the beginning of the general strike, a sub-committee of five persons, with power to add to their number. That was on 6th May. What did they do on the very next day? On 7th May they passed a further resolution:
that the remaining members of the Labour party on the board be added to the committee.

Mr. LAWSON: That is not true.

Mr. GRACE: We are charged by the Resolution which is now before us with acting in a partisan and bureaucratic manner. All I can say is that when the people come to judge between the conduct of the Socialist members of the Chester-le-Street Guardians and the conduct of the Government in removing those people under the powers which Parliament gave to the Minister of Health last year, I think there is very little doubt which way the opinion of the people will go. It has been complained that the Chester-le-Street Guardians have had no opportunity of answering the allegations which have been made against them. Really, these charges answer themselves, because they are all contained in the minutes of the board. These guardians are convicted out of their own mouths and their own minutes convict them. If one wanted any further instances, one has only to look at the Labour guardians'
case which is set out in the "Daily Herald" of 12th March last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] I will read it later on. Let me take one case, and it is a case of subsidising wages. It is a minute which merely shows what was decided on the 21st June, 1923. It is as follows:
That men in employment in receipt of low wages shall have them made up to the maximum of £2 10s. per week.
There is following this a note heading which says:
With regard to the latter part of the resolution the clerk pointed out that it was illegal to subsidise wages.
In spite of the legal adviser to the board pointing out this illegality, the guardians still pursued their own way. Again, on 17th July, 1924, they paid to collier members in the union the full rate of 50s. a week, but they provided that other men who are not colliers shall not receive the benefit of the rent of their houses. Why should they differentiate between colliers and other working men. We on this side of the House have been charged with acting in a partisan spirit,. but what I have just given is a very clear instance of the partisan spirit shown by this board of guardians. on the 2nd July, 1925, came the resolution which is one of the worst aspects of this matter, namely, that trade unionists, while work was short and they were in debt to their union or had ceased to be members of their union, should not receive benefit for the first six weeks, and after that they should go on to a lower basis of relief.

Mr. BATEY: Where is that stated?

Mr. GRACE: It is about two-thirds of the way down on page 10 of the Report. What did the "Daily Herald" say about that. This is the defence set out in the
"Daily Herald" by their advisers:
Miners in arrears would not, of course, receive benefits from the fund, and the board did not consider it proper to pay the full scale to people who, through their own neglect, were unable to claim from their trade union as much as their careful and thrifty fellows.
All I can say is that, if this board had had a little more regard for the careful and thrifty ratepayers of the Chester-le-Street Union, they would not have got themselves into the fix in which they are at present.
Again, why should a board of guardians interfere in the private affairs of any man who comes to them claiming relief? [Interruption.] Their duty is to inquire into the man's position and to find out what relief he is in need of. It is nothing to do with them whether he is a member of a trade union or not. These people, instead of showing themselves reasonable and fair men, anxious to carry out their duties in a proper way, have, in my opinion, shown themselves to be animated by a spirit of meanness and vindictiveness. I should like just to say one word with regard to the presence of these four unemployed workmen who were standing when the relief was being paid out. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) denies that the guardians had received any money at all. That, I think, is clearly incorrect, but I should like to ask the hon. Member why should these four men have been there at all? What were they doing when this money—not kind—was being paid out? Why should they call out to the people, as they came up after having received their money, "Do not forget the guardians; remember the guardians"?

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member puts to me the question why they should be there and call out. The simple statement is that they did not do anything of the kind. They never asked. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I know for the simple reason that I have made an investigation. They were not there. They could not get money, because the vouchers were paid in kind; and when they were there in 1925, they acted simply for the unemployed, and took the pennies at the door from those persons. They were not connected in any way with the Labour party. We maintain our own people and our own representatives, just as the Conservative party do theirs.

Mr. GRACE: The White Paper showed that the average weekly money payments started at over £1,000 a week, and came down to about £800 a week. What does the "Daily Herald" report say about this? It says:
What an amusing experience eminent K.C. 's must have had, considering the case of recipients of Poor Law relief giving their mites to representatives of the board who were also out of work.
That, I think, is a clear admission that they were receiving money. They were only mites, but they were receiving money. The Report further states:
In no single instance can it be shown that any guardian ever asked himself, or requested that the person receiving relief should be asked, to contribute to any fund out of the relief received, for the purpose of paying him or her anything in the form of expenses or anything else.
The defence, therefore, to this charge is not a denial that any money has been received, but simply that they did not receive it directly, but got other people to go and receive it for them. Lastly, I would like to ask hon. Members why, if these charges are untrue, they have waited eight months before bringing this Resolution before the House. When the guardians were removed, in August of last year, that was their opportunity to bring this charge. They must have known then that there was something serious in the air. If any friends of mine who were guardians were removed, I should not like to sit still and let this cloud hang over them for eight months. It is only when the White Paper is produced, and you all realise, and the country realises, the gravity of what these people have done, when you realise the damage that has been done to your own political future— [Interruption]—then you stand up and show this hot indignation at the conduct of the Government in saving this district from its people's own representatives. I second the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment accused my Friends of not having dealt with the points in the Report in the course of their speeches: but he himself was very careful to spend all the time which a generous House allotted to him in practising that which he unjustly condemned in my Friends. He spent his time in lecturing the party for whom I speak on the demoralising influence of acquisitiveness. Rumour has it that he is very closely connected with a family who have succeeded in acquiring some millions of the wealth of this country, and I agree with him—

Mr. J. JONES: And they are Germans!

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. JONES: I am not going to withdraw.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I agree with him that acquisitiveness must have a demoralising influence when a millionaire will rise in this House and denounce guardians for giving to a destitute woman 15s. a week. [Interruption.] I cannot congratulate the Minister of Health on his handling of the -question we are discussing to-night. The Report is a jumble of points dealing with events prior to and during the industrial trouble of 1926. As has been already pointed out, it is presented to this House in a way calculated to impress us, and to impress the country, with the view that it deals only with the events arising and the trouble accruing from the mining stoppage during the latter part of last year. The Minister of Health allowed this Report to be rushed into the public Press in a manner which justly brought upon him the condemnation of this. House. He did not even wait to give Parliament the ordinary courtesy of presenting to it a Report that had been prepared for Parliament. He evidently regarded the Tory Press as being more important than Parliament, and so he gave to the Tory Press the privilege of presenting to us, in the first instance, a Report that had been prepared for our special benefit.
These charges have been paraded in the country as if they were proved facts. There is not one of those charges that has been proved. The right hon. Gentleman may have some evidence to present to this House to-night, but it will require evidence out of this Report to prove against the guardians of Chester-le-Street a single act for which they or their supporters require to blush. I propose, as far as time will allow, to deal with the charges in the Report. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters will not deny the legality of the action of the board of guardians in granting relief to the destitute dependants of people who were affected by the coal stoppage. The guardians of Chester-le-Street had not only the right but the duty imposed upon them to grant the necessary relief during the coal dispute, and I want to emphasise that the guardians had no right to differentiate between ordinary destitution and emergency destitution, that the dependants of miners who were entitled to relief had the same claim on that relief, were entitled to the same consideration, and should in justice have had the same scale as the recipients of ordinary relief.
The fact that the guardians were miners or members of the Labour party was entirely beside the question. It mattered not what the occupation of the guardian was, or what his political view was. Parliament had placed on him an obligation and a duty towards these destitute people, and it was his business to carry out that duty.
10.0 p.m.
Not only that, but if the right hon. Gentleman who has been charging these guardians with faithlessness to their duty had practised in his Department the policy that is expected of him by Parliament, he would have made it his business to see that the destitute dependants of the miners in Durham were treated at least as generously as the destitute dependants or the recipients of relief of any other section of the community. Neither does it touch the question, as is pointed out in this Report, that one-half of the population of Durham were requiring parochial relief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has already pointed out that this was a district that had come through an almost unparalleled period of industrial depression. For five years, from 1921 to 1926, it had been plagued with unemployment. During that period, as he reminded the House, the Durham Miners' Union had been compelled to pay out in relief to their members over £2,500,000. When the coal stoppage took place, it was naturally to be expected that a community so pauperised by the general depression should be in almost immediate need of relief from the guardians when their meagre incomes from the mines had stopped. But I wish to point out that at no time did the dependants of the miners in the Chester-le-Street Union receive the same scale of relief as the recipients of ordinary relief, and I submit—I do not think the other side will question this— that were it not for the fact that we had the industrial depression and we had ourselves submerged by this enormous expenditure in Durham, these guardians would not be to-night in the dock. They are in the dock, not for their treatment of ordinary destitution; they are in the dock on a charge of having more than generously treated the dependants of the miners during the industrial struggle, I pointed out at the beginning that this
report is a jumble of charges dealing with events that occurred long before the industrial trouble of last year, and I would emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend that the events of 1923, 1924 and 1925, which are included in this report, have already received the approval of the Minister of Health, and have already been approved by the official auditors appointed to advise his Department.
I would like to deal with the scale of relief that is alleged by the other side to be one that should not have been properly granted by the responsible people. The sum per head that was paid to the recipients of both sections on the 12th May is exactly identical, but whereas the recipients of ordinary relief received an allowance for coal and for rent, the recipients of emergency relief were granted no such allowance. When we come to the 30th August we find that, while the scale of relief for ordinary destitution remained the same, the scale of relief to the dependants of miners had been reduced. The woman, instead of getting 15s. a week, had her allowance now reduced to 12s., and the children's scale of relief was reduced from 5s. to 4s. a week. I do not know what the Members on the other side may regard as extreme action in the treatment of the poor, but if I were an elector in the Chester-le-Street Union, I would have great difficulty in bringing myself to vote for a Labour candidate who reduced from 15s. to 12s. a week the allowance to a woman during the fourth terrible month of that industrial dispute. But when you come to the 30th November, when the people's guardians had gone, and the Minister's guardians have taken their place, we find a state of affairs for which, I submit, any civilised community ought to blush. The 12s. a week to the wife is now reduced to 8s., and the allowance for the child, apart from any feeding obtained at school, is reduced to 2s. a week. So that, at the present cost of living, the guardians, appointed by the Conservative Minister of Health to protect the poor people who require his protection most, consider that a woman ought to be able to maintain herself and three children on 14s. a week. In my opinion, the man who to-day would force a woman to maintain herself and three children on
14s. a week ought to be taken out to a public place and horsewhipped, and the-Cabinet Minister who approved of that policy ought to be associated in the punishment.
It is suggested that these guardians granted relief indiscriminately without any regard at all to the interests of the ratepayers, and were thinking only of their friends in dealing out these hundreds of thousands of pounds. But is it not a remarkable fact—and again I am quoting from the Report— that, whereas, under the old guardians, the number of persons who received relief was 37,000, after all the efforts of the new guardians had been exhausted, they were only able to reduce that number to 35,000, and that in the month of November. After they had combed out-every possible case in which even a man who could lay down that scale for a woman and three children could find an excuse for deletion; when they had gone through the whole 37,000 cases, they had to be content with writing off the names of 2,000 persons, almost entirely young men, and in that way justifying the very careful selection that must have been made by the late guardians before they granted relief. We are told, as evidence in support of their indiscriminate action, that applicants were not asked to produce their cooperative books, so that the guardians would have a reasonable opportunity of judging whether there was actual destitution. I would remind the House that the guardians here, and the applicants for relief were well known to one another. [Laughter.] The very reason for the existence of guardians, and particularly of guardians such as are elected by an industrial community—the very justification for their election is their very intimate knowledge of the people. It is not disputed in the Report that every one of these applicants had to appear before the Committee. When the applicant appeared before the Committee, the members knew his family affairs in a manner in which they could not be understood by people who came from outside the district or who belonged to another class in society.
The evidence of the honesty of the statements made by the applicants, and the evidence in support of the action of
the Committee in not adopting a prying curiosity into their most intimate family-affairs, is to be found in the report itself. You are dealing here with approximately 40,000 recipients of relief. Only 24 out of the 40,000 have been proceeded against for obtaining money by false pretences. I wonder is there any other section of the British community from whom you could select 40,000 persons and find among that vast multitude only 24 who had obtained money by false pretences? As has been already pointed out in the Debate proceedings against the 24 were initiated, not by the guardians appointed by the Minister of Health, but by the guardians who were superseded by the Minister of Health. Since the appointed guardians came on, they have discovered, after exhaustive investigation, 34 persons more who admit that their statements were not entirely accurate. Take the two groups together, and you find there are 58 persons, out of 40,000 recipients, during a period of unprecedented difficulty, when there must have been imposed upon the guardians trials that they were not subjected to in dealing with ordinary relief, and, during that terrible time, exhaustive inquiry by people who arc very, very keenly interested in obtaining evidence has been only able to reveal the existence of 58 persons out of that vast multitude whose statements were not perfectly accurate.
When we come to the sum of money, it is an even greater revelation. If we admit that the whole of the money obtained by these 58 persons was money of which the ratepayers were defrauded, it amounts to this. The total sum taken by these 58 persons was £580,, and the total amount disbursed during the period when that £580 was obtained amounted to £250,000. One of the other charges— and we are told that we have not replied to it—is that an Emergency Committee was set up from which the non-Labour members of the union were excluded, and the last speaker made an eloquent appeal to our sense of justice as to how this could happen and democracy survive. I would point out to him, and I think my information will not be disputed, that the 12 non-Labour guardians were excluded, not because they were outside the ranks of the Labour party, because they excluded themselves by never attending to the business for which they were elected.
And that is more than can be said for most of the charges here. There is on record the fact that the rural district council had to protest to these men about their negligence in regard to the duties for which they had been selected. The Labour members were co-opted in the ordinary way. In the main the 12 non-Labour members were not available. They were colliery managers and officials who were engaged at their ordinary employment during the dispute. They were not available for this work at all. The Labour members were the members who were available. The emergency committee co-opted those whose services could be had. They ignored the people who in ordinary times had neglected their duties and who during that difficult time were engaged in their ordinary occupations. But, even although this charge were true, is there anything extraordinary about it? I was a member of the Corporation of Glasgow prior to coming into this House in 1922. During that period our industrial localities were heavily hit by unemployment. We were invited by the Government of the day to pool our brains in an effort to contribute locally to a solution of that problem. The Corporation of Glasgow in 1921 and 1922, acting through its Conservative majority, refused to allow a Labour member to sit on the unemployment committee, and I submit that there was much less reason for keeping Labour members from the unemployment committee, dealing with schemes of work, than there was for keeping the admitted enemies of the common people from acting on the Board in the circumstances that existed in Chester-le-Street.
Another charge is that lines were given to the co-operative societies only, to the exclusion of private traders. My information is that this only took place in the Birtley district. The Birtley parish is only a very small part of the entire unit and there was a sound reason for adopting this policy. The relief here was given in kind in the form of lines which were to be given to the traders in return for goods. The poor came back time and again to the guardians and told them that from these traders they were not getting full value for their lines. They appealed to the guardians for protection, and the guardians, again doing their duty, sent the poor to the stores
where they were- sure to be- treated on lines of common honesty. We are also told in the Report that the guardians acted unjustly in dismissing or suspending certain relieving officers. The fact is that the relieving officers refused even to interview single persons who claimed to foe destitute, and who were not in the dispute at all. The relieving officers, acting for this union, actually refused to grant an interview to, these young and starving men. I understand that one of them went so far as to keep a policeman at the entrance to his office, and I understand that two others put notices outside their windows that these young men were not to apply and that their cases would not be considered. The guardians begged the relieving, officers to treat each case on its merits and, at least, grant an interview to a man who claimed to be starving. The relieving officers refused to do so, and the guardians had no choice.—they would nave been cowards if they had done anything else—but to take the very human course of suspending the-relieving officers, and appointing competent men.
I submit that there is not a single charge in the Report—a Report which has been broadcast for political purposes all over the land—which has been proved or that could be proved if a public inquiry were granted. The best evidence of our belief in our case is that we demand an inquiry. Is it not due to the 40,000 honest persons who are receiving relief in Chester-le-Street that when charges are made against them they should have an opportunity of refuting those charges? Is it not due to the guardians who have given their time and their services generously and gratuitously for years that they should be given an opportunity of disproving the allegations made against them, and which are broad-east over the country as if the charges had been proved? We are actually asked to believe that this is the Report, of an unbiased judge. As has been well pointed out, the Minister of Health can Jay no claim to being free from bias in a matter such as this.
The right hon. Gentleman believes that all local government should be Tory government and that if local government is not Tory government there should be no local government at all. The whole
policy of the Government is this, that when a district deserts Toryism it is to be disfranchised and deprived of the benefits of elected government. Socialist guardians are to be tested by Tory standards. If they treat the poor better than the Tories would treat the poor, they are to be dismissed from office. That is to be the test of their suitability for office. They are elected because the poor believe that they will get more generous treatment from them than they would get from the Tories. If the poor did not believe that, there would be no sense in ousting the Tories and replacing them by Socialist local governors.
We on this side of the House—[HON.MEMBERS: "Time!"]—1 will not take more than a minute now—are not advocating anything in the way of reckless expenditure. We do not believe that any recklessness was displayed by the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians. We lay it down as a Socialistic principle that if the comfort of any section of the community can be increased without thereby reducing the comfort of another section of the community, that there is a net gain of comfort which ought to be adopted. This Report sets out to prove that the board of guardians at Chester-le-Street benefited a section of the community. It makes no effort to prove that any other section of the community has suffered to the extent of a slice of bread by the action of the board of guardians. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I deal with just one more point, and it is the important point with regard to the subsidising of wages.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): indicated assent.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have his assent, for which I am very grateful. A great deal of play is made of the fact that the guardians of Chester-le-Street subsidised the wages of those who were receiving from the employers a weekly income less than they would receive if they were unemployed. I submit that they displayed a sound public policy; that it is a bad business that there should be a greater reward for going idle than for working. But if there is any scandal in this matter it is on the side of those who made the subsidising of wages necessary. The guardians only did this, they made it as profitable
to be employed as to be unemployed. Am I to accept as the Tory policy that a man who is employed should reeeive a smaller weekly income than he would receive if he were unemployed? Is that the Tory policy? It is the Tory policy as applied to one section only, but it is never applied to the working classes, and I submit that we ought to be grateful to the Chester-le-Street Guardians who had the good sound public sense to see that the people who were employed were rewarded for their industry and not encouraged to adopt idleness as a means of obtaining their income. In conclusion, I maintain that these serious charges should be withdrawn unless the people who make them are prepared to submit proof to an impartial tribunal. If the Government refuse a public inquiry then the country will believe that the Government is wrong. The two elections which have taken place since the Report was issued may not have been as favourable to my party as I could desire, but for the first time since 1924 the candidates supported by the Conservative party found themselves at the bottom of the poll.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is one advantage which one can at once claim for the Debate that has taken place this evening, and that is that we know now exactly where we are with regard to the policy of the Labour party in connection with the administration of Poor relief. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has justified the subsidising of wages. He has justified every action which has been made the subject of a -charge in the Report which has been published. We may assume, therefore, that it is the definite and deliberate policy of the Socialist party, if they should obtain a majority upon a board of guardians, to use the money of the ratepayers for the purpose of assisting their own political friends, for distinguishing between one working man and another according to what trade union he belongs to, deliberately casting aside the usual means of ascertaining whether statements made by applicants for relief are justified, and to use the money of the ratepayers for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth in their areas.
I do not think that I shall be doing any injustice to the hon. Member who put down this Motion if I say that he was not so much concerned with the
supersession of the guardians as he was with the report of the appointed guardians; further, that he was influenced by the idea that the best means of defence is offence, and that he hoped to divert attention from the amazing and remarkable proceedings of the late board of guardians by accusing the Minister of Health of the Very iniquities which had been laid to the charge of the guardians themselves. I observed in his speech, as well as in that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, the general assumption that the supersession of the guardians had taken place upon the charges that are made in the report of the appointed guardians. Again and again we were told that the crime which had been committed by the guardians and for which they had been superseded was that they had given a scale of relief to the people in their area, and in particular to the dependants of miners, which was higher than the Minister of Health was prepared to tolerate. If that be the honest belief of hon. Members opposite, they are entirely mistaken.
I want, in the first instance, to go with some particularity into the events which immediately preceded the supersession of the guardians, because the House will see, when I give them the facts, that the real reason why the supersession of the guardians had to take place under the Guardians (Default) Act was that these guardians persistently, in spite of repeated warnings from me and repeated assurances and promises on their part that they would amend their ways, insisted on giving illegal relief. Let me give the House a brief history of what happened. I may say that I had had considerable trouble with this board before the time of the general strike. They had in my opinion been extravagant in their administration and they had not been as careful as they should have been to keep the various promises which they had given me even before that time. But 1 want only to take the history of what happened after the month of May, when I issued Circular 703. At that time the guardians had already an overdraft of £50,000. Being at the end of their resources they were obliged to depend upon what advances they could get from their treasurers, the local banks.
Of course they had to come to me for sanction, before they could obtain these
overdrafts and during that month they applied for and obtained from me two more sanctions for overdrafts of £10,000 each. That did not last them very long, and on 4th June they applied for further sanctions. I then thought, as they were paying relief at considerably higher rates than those which I had suggested in my Circular as the normal maxima that it was time to put some more pressure upon them. I told them I required from them what proposals they could make to me for a reduction in their expenditure and I pointed out that they were at that time, apparently, ignoring the warning which I had given them in that circular that to pay any relief to men on strike was contrary to the law as it had been laid down. That produced a deputation. They came to see me on 11th June and they protested against any conditions whatever being imposed on their obtaining these further sanctions. But they did promise that when they went back they would recommend the guardians to withdraw a resolution that had been passed authorising the granting of illegal relief —that is, relief to single men who were miners and who were on strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Locked out."] On that assurance to me, they got, in two successive weeks, sanctions for two overdrafts of £10,000 each. On 25th June my inspector reported to me that, in spite of the assurance they had given, single miners were being granted two amounts of 6s. each per week. Therefore when they made application for a further sanction I wrote and pointed out that they had not kept their promise. I said:
The Minister is informed by the General Inspector that the guardians are relieving single strikers in lodgings by grunting 6s. twice a week to all who state that they are destitute. This would appear to be a breach of the undertaking given to the Minister. The Minister will not, of course, be prepared to consider favourably any proposal for further financial facilities unless the guardians undertake to leave such cases to apply to the relieving officers to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law as laid down in the Merthyr Tydvil judgment.
In reply to that, I had a letter from the guardians saying that they agreed to carry out the suggestions which I had made, and that they would leave to the relieving officers entirely the question of relieving single destitute miners. On that, I gave two further sanctions, one
for £10,000 and the other for £9,000. Of course, these were soon exhausted, and once more a deputation came to the Ministry—on 22nd July—and in the course of conversation it was admitted that the relieving officers were anxious to obey the law, but found it extremely difficult to do so when guardians went to public meetings and said that they had given the relieving officers instructions to grant relief to these men. It was admitted that the relieving officers were, in fact, giving relief to large numbers of single miners. That was the second breach of assurances that had been given.

Mr. TAYLOR: How was it a breach?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They had given me an assurance that they would stop it, and because of that assurance they had obtained from me sanctions for further overdrafts which I would not have given but for that assurance.

Mr. TAYLOR: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman says—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has been left very little time, and hon. Members should allow him to proceed without interruption.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As a result of the information given to me by the deputation themselves I then sent a letter to the relieving officers reminding them once more of what the law was, and pointing out that they were personally responsible for carrying out their work in accordance with the law. I wrote again to the guardians, and said if they were prepared now to withdraw their opposition to the relieving officers complying with the law, then I was ready to give them further sanction for a loan. As a matter of fact, on the 30th July, the banks having by now refused to advance any more money to this board of guardians, a Goschen loan of £16,000 was given to them. What was the result of that? On the 13th August, having got this £16,000, the guardians passed this resolution:
That, in the opinion of this board, its action in relieving single persons is legal and proper, that the board regrets inability either to desist from such policy or to find the necessary money to carry it out, and calls upon the Ministry of Health to immediately produce such funds.
I think the House will admit that my patience was very prolonged in continuing to deal with people who behaved in that way. I wrote a letter to the relieving officers directing them to comply with the law, but once more I offered to give a further advance to the guardians if they themselves would 'Comply with the law. On the 23rd August the guardians had a meeting, at which they decided that they would leave the question of relief entirely to the relieving officers, and on the 24th August they got another Goschen loan of £25,000. Two days afterwards, they suspended three relieving officers for obeying my instructions and refusing relief to single miners who were not destitute. They accompanied that action by a further demand for another £35,000, and four days afterwards I superseded them. The question which the House should ask is not why I superseded these guardians, but how it was that, after such repeated evidence of their inability to keep any promises that they made, after such repeated demonstrations of their unreliability and of their persistence in illegal actions, I went on advancing them money, about which there was some doubt if it could ever be recovered, and why I did not put into action at an earlier stage the powers I possessed. I feel that that is a much more difficult question to answer than the former one. The reason is simply this, that, contrary to the ideas of hon. Members opposite, I was extremely reluctant to use the powers of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. That Act was brought in to deal with a particular case, the case of West Ham, and at that time I hoped it would not be necessary to use it again. I brought it in, as I said at the time, when I was moving the Second Reading in this House, not to destroy local government, but to save it. I regarded it as something only to be used in the very last extremity, when every other resource had been tried.
Let the House see what the position was. Here was this board of guardians going on giving relief in a manner which was contrary to the law. They had completely exhausted their own resources, and they were coming to me week after week and demanding that I should produce funds to enable them to go on giving illegal relief. What could I have done? If I was to go on doing that I should
have been condoning illegality. Any Minister, to whatever party he belongs, no matter what he may say in opposition, would have been obliged to act exactly as I have acted. If any proof of that is needed I ask the House to remember that this supersession took place on 30th August last; and in spite of the fact that the House was sitting all through the Autumn Session, and has been sitting for seven weeks in this Session, not a single member of the party opposite has ever challenged my action, has every brought forward any Motion, or taken any steps, to condemn the action which I then took —until to-day, when an hon. Member on the back benches puts down a Motion in the hope, which perhaps is not unjustified, that if followers give a lead the leaders are pretty certain to follow.
Let us come to the second part of the charge against me. I am told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) that I gave the Report of the guardians to the Tory Press. It has been repeated to-night by both hon. Gentlemen. I am rather surprised they should have said it to-night, because I have already specifically denied that charge in this House. It is unusual for a Member to give the lie direct to another hon. Member of this House, even if he be of the opposite party, who sits on the Front Bench.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am surprised to learn that I charged the right hon. Gentleman with giving it to the Press. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did!"] I charged him with allowing it to get to the Press. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said he gave it!"]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have the words as written down at the time. He said that I gave it to the Tory Press. [Interruption.] I am sufficiently satisfied after what the right hon. Gentleman has now said. No one regretted more than I did that the Report appeared in any paper before it was in the hands of hon. Members in this House. [Interruption.] Members of the House should be the first to see any such document. But I cannot admit that anybody was injured by the publication, except that it was an affront to the dignity of this House. Actually, neither the guardians themselves nor the party opposite were in any
way injured by the premature publication of the Report—which in any case was to be published. Why do hon. Members opposite say that this Report was published without giving the guardians any opportunity of replying? They have had plenty of opportunities of replying, and the proof is that they have replied. I have got their reply here.
It is rather interesting to recall what happened. When this Report was published there was at once a meeting of the ex-guardians, from which the Press were excluded. It lasted for an hour and 40 minutes, at the end of which time the chairman stated that they were not going to issue any reply at that moment. as they wanted to consider their reply carefully. Three days after they issued this carefully-prepared reply. Apparently the reply was not good enough, or not considered good enough by the Labour party, because about a week afterwards the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street sent an invitation to the chairman and the members of the ex-board of guardians to come up to London to consult with the National Labour party and a legal adviser to see whether they could not concoct a better one.
We are still waiting for that better one. The real grievance is, not that the guardians were given no opportunity of replying, but that even with the assistance of the National Labour party and the legal adviser, they were unable to produce any reply which was good enough to put before the public. I am not altogether surprised that the nature of the reply did not seem entirely satisfactory to the Labour party, because let the House note this, that not one single one of the charges made in the published Report of the appointed guardians is denied by the ex-guardians in their carefully considered reply. Some of them are justified, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite has attempted to justify them this evening, but not a single one of them is denied, and they cannot be denied because, as the Parliamentary Secretary-has stated, the great majority of them are actually taken from the resolutions and minutes of the guardians themselves.
I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street attempted to make the defence of these resolutions that they were not passed by the main board
of guardians but by district committees, but it would seem that the ex-guardians-in their carefully considered reply, which took them one hour and 40 minutes on. the first day and goodness knows how long afterwards, had no thought of making that defence.

Mr. LAWSON: If I conveyed any such idea to the House, I did not mean to say that they were not passed by the guardians. What I pointed out was that they were passed by the district of Birtley and the charges simply and solely were concerned with the Birtley district.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the hon. Gentleman's argument was very much weaker than I thought it was. In the Report of the appointed guardians, Birtley is taken as being the most illuminating of the various minutes and resolutions which had been before them. It was not the only one, and I dare say if they had published a much longer Report we should have found similar things going on
The hon. Member made a triumphant reply to that particular charge which in my opinion was not the worst recorded against the board, and is generally known as "Remember the guardians." He said that it could not be true because all the relief was given in kind and it would not have been possible for the guardians to receive money. But the hon. Member has been investigating this case and he must know that though relief in kind was given after May, between August, 1925, and May, 1926, relief was not given in kind only, but a largo part was given in cash, and it was at that period that the incident occurred which has been so much commented upon and is not denied in the reply of the ex-guardians. It is said that in no single instance can it be said that any guardian asked or requested that persons should be asked to contribute to the relief of the guardians themselves.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I wish to ask if the document from which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting should not be printed and laid on the Table.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from an official document.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether it can be called an official docu-
ment, but it is the carefully considered reply of the Chester-le-Stre-et Guardians.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That is all very funny. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: When hon. Members bring forward a Resolution in this House it is most unfair, having stated their case, not to listen to the reply.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report says that there stood at the entrance to the room four individuals, representing the local unemployed organisation, who asked those who had received the relief as they went out to "Remember the guardians."[An HON. MEMBER: Why not?"] I do not see why I should suppress and hush up this Report, and if had refused to publish the Report I have received from the appointed guardians, hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the first to demand that it should be given to the House, or they would have said that I was suppressing something which was favourable to the ex-guardians. 1 know this secrecy is part of the regular policy of the Labour party, and when-

ever there is a sign of independence of thought shown in that party it is promptly followed by expulsion. [Interruption.] The right of free speech is: refused both in and out of this House. The Press was-muzzled during the general strike, and hon. Members shout out that newspapers are lying when they publish facts which do not square with their views. These guardians have abused the position of trust in which they have been placed, and I intend as long as I am Minister of Health to use the powers which have been given to me by the Act to deal with those who abuse their position for party purposes. In using those powers with which I have been entrusted in the way I have done, I ask this House to declare that I have not acted with partiality or injustice but with a patience and a tolerance which deserved a better response.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 297.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Ammon. Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abartillery)
Hirst. W. (Bradford. South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Batey. Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Beckett. John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lowth. T.
Townend, A. E.


Cove. W. G.
Lunn. William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Morrison. R. c. (Tottenham, North)
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilcatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, I. P.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Pcthick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham. D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercillffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves. T.
Ritson. J.



Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W.C (Yorks, W. R., Eiland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sexton, James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, John
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lamb, J. Q.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
England, Colonel A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Fairfax, Captain J, G.
Looker, Herbert William


Astor, Viscountess
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Lougher, Lewis


Atholl, Duchess of
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Atkinson, C.
Fenby, T. D.
Lumley, L. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Balnlet, Lord
Finburgh, S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
McLean. Major A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macquiston, F. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Berry, Sir George
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone. Major P. B.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Margesson, Captain D.


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lioyd
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, F. B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon, B. M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, R. H.


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastb'rne)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hall. Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
O'Connor, T.J. (Bedford, Luton


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Owen, Major G.


Casseis, J. D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather. Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perring, Sir William George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major John Waller
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Philipson, Mabel


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarry. Reginald George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid. D. D. (County Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Remer, J. R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hnntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hurst. Gerald B.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rye, F. G.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jacob, A. E.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Si- Robert A.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson. E. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Slmon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)




Skelton, A. N.
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n&Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smithers, Waldron
Tinne, J. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt- Hon. Earl


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise. Sir Fredric


Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(WilI'sden, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Storry-Deans, R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Watts, Dr. T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wells, S. R.
Wragg, Herbert


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Styles, Captain H. Walter
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairvmnle-



Sugden. Sir Wilfrid
Wiggins, William Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Major Ropner and Mr. Grace.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. SCURR: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 76 of Army Act.)

In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment) after the word "persons," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "of not less than eighteen years of age," and after the word "may," where that word first occurs, there 6hall be inserted the words "upon production of his birth certificate."—[Mr. Beckett.]

Mr. BECKETT: I was appealing to the sympathy of the Committee on the grounds that the new Clause was merely designed to put into practical effect a decision which has been repeatedly affirmed by members of all parties and governments of all kinds in this House. It has been objected for a long time that it was not a fit and proper thing for young boys to he accepted in the ordinary way for Army engagements below the age of 18 years. Therefore, I am hoping that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee because not only is it putting into practical effect what the House has already decided, but it is also calculated to save the country some considerable expense and to help the responsible Minister in that task in which so far he has not been any too successful, of reducing the amount of the estimates
which he presents to the House every year. It is also calculated to relieve to a very great extent the difficulties which commanding officers of units find themselves in and the difficulties and troubles caused in many homes through the present very peculiar way of enforcing this rule at recruiting stations. The fact that the Amendment is needed and is not dealing with too insignificant a matter is proved by a very incomplete set of figures I have been able to accumulate from various reports presented to us by the Secretary of State for War. In the last three years for which I have been able to obtain official figures I find that of boys, not under 18, but under 17 —and I think there are more cases between 17 and 18 than there are under 17—the actual discharges in 1922 were 711, in 1923 T93, and in 1924 503, making a total in three years of something over 2,000. From the most material point of view it is a waste of public funds and putting the expressed desire of the House to an absurdity when 2,000 boys under 17 are recruited, although it would be a very simple matter, by making them produce their birth certificates, to see if they were not under age. Two thousand boys are taken from their homes, presumably medically examined, there is all the cost to the State of their recruitment, the issue of uniform and equipment and if they are in a specialised unit, many other expensive articles of apparatus. Before any possible return can be made to the State for the money that is expended on them, 2,000 of them returned to civil life simply because Parliament has expressed the view that boys under IS should not be in the Army, but has not laid down any effective measures to prevent them getting in.
I was very much surprised in a Debate on a somewhat similar Amendment last year to read the speech of the Financial
Secretary to the War Office, who put forward the argument that many of these boys come of families with warlike traditions, deceive the State and take the State's money by false pretences with the full consent of their parents, and it would be very annoying to those parents if they were to return to their homes, and therefore he must reject the Amendment, which would make it impossible for this form of fraud to be perpetrated on the State. That is a very surprising argument to be put forward by a responsible Member of the Government. There is hardly any other Act of Parliament in which Members would not regard with strong disapproval a suggestion put forward from the Front Bench that the Government must by all means encourage lying false sworn statements and a wilful deception of His Majesty's recruiting office, and an absolutely fraudulent expenditure from the Exchequer. I hope whoever replies will not put forward a highly immoral argument of that sort. In previous debates we have been told that if the parents are in difficulties they can go to the commanding officer and if it is a necessitous case the commanding officer will see what can be done. I have served under several commanding officers and have been before them on various charges and have received from them both good and bad treatment. The very fact that a commanding officer is removed from ordinary contact with the industrial, social and business world makes him a very poor judge in an issue of this kind. In many eases you do not apply to the commanding officer. If you are lucky the case gets to the adjutant, but in most cases it rests with the sergeant-major. That is the kind of safeguard which this House-proposes for these unfortunate boys. It means waste of expenditure upon recruits, and trouble and consternation in thousands of homes. I have made inquiries and have asked hon. Members of all parties and they tell me that they have had cases brought to their notice of boys who have gone into the Army against their parents' will, by making a false statement. I have the details of five cases, but only in one case was I able to get the boy returned. In one case there was a great deal of worry and trouble. The mother, a widow, was
almost off her head because her boy was ordered abroad, and, unfortunately, he went abroad before I was able to call the attention of the Department to the case.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be arguing the next Clause. Perhaps it is not desired to move the next Clause, but as it is germane, the arguments may be taken on this one.

Mr. BECKETT: If I am going outside this Clause I am sorry. It seems to me such an unfair thing that while we safeguard almost every kind and section of the community by Acts of Parliament and give them adequate safeguards against Acts of Parliament, we chose boys not old enough to know their own mind, who are very often at the most irresponsible period of their lives as exceptions. If these boys entered into any contract with a moneylender they would not be held responsible for their actions, but because such a boy commits himself to a most serious thing, with the possibility of death either from rifles of enemies of this country or at the hands of a firing squad of his own countrymen, as was done in the last war, and we still allow these boys to commit themselves without making any safeguards. Even where no active and official opposition is offered to the release of these boys great difficulties are experienced by poor parents who do not know how to approach the matter. The trouble is due to the fact that they are told, quite unofficially, that if they take legal steps to get their boy out of the Army—

The CHAIRMAN: If it is proposed to move the subsequent Amendment I suggest that the argument on both should proceed now, and if that be accepted we might have the two Divisions afterwards.

Mr. BECKETT: I have no authority to speak for the promoters of the second Amendment, and I submit that when I am moving an Amendment which asks that boys should not be admitted under 18 years of age that I am within the limits of that subject in dealing with the expenditure of time and money caused by the present state of affairs.

The CHAIRMAN: I am trying to assist the hon. Member. I think it is difficult to discuss the two Amendments apart, and my suggestion is that they should be
discussed together, and, if it is desired, the two divisions can be taken afterwards.

Mr. SCURR: As the Mover of the Second Amendment, I am prepared to accept your suggestion.

Mr. BECKETT: The parents of these boys are told that if they take legal steps to get their sons' discharge, then steps will be taken to punish the boys for the wrong statements they have made. The parents are not sufficiently aware of the law and its procedure to know that that is an absurd suggestion, but a fear of that kind does weight largely with many of them. Having said quite definitely that 18 years of age is quite early enough for boys to go into the Army, this House foolishly allows this law to be broken, putting the State to great and unproductive expenditure and the parents to much worry and misery.

Mr. SCURR: I only want to say that I think the Secretary of State should accept the Amendment which stands in my name. I commend it to him as good sound Tory philosophy. We ask that family life should be maintained, and that, I understand, is good Tory philosophy. We shall know whether it is by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with it. At the same time it is common sense as well. If a lad under 18 has joined the Army by deceiving the recruiting officer, and his parents disclose the fact that he is under that age and want him back, the mere fact that they make the application should be quite sufficient. We ought to get rid of all the trouble and annoyance which is caused at present.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot accept either of these Amendments and I will say why. The first Amendment would prevent us from enlisting boys as musicians or for the technical training classes in which they are now legally qualified to obtain a very good technical education. The position at the moment is that, if a boy gives his age wrongly on enlistment, and it is found out afterwards that he is under 17, he can get and does get his discharge immediately. If he is over 17 and under 18 he does not get his discharge, except upon some compassionate grounds. If
there is a case made out on compassionate grounds, he is released. It has been shown that 500 were released in 1924 and TOO in the previous year. That shows, surely, that in proper cases no serious difficulty is put in the way of release from the Army.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Could not all that trouble be avoided by asking for production of the birth certificate?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The proposal of the Amendment is that the birth certificate should be called for. There are many reasons why I do not want to insist upon a birth certificate. I do not want to make it difficult for young fellows to join the Army. I do not wish to say to them, "Who are you? Go away and bring your birth certificate." Suspicion would immediately arise that for some ulterior motive we are wanting to know whether his parents were married or when they were married, or something of that sort. I do not want to interfere in the least with the parents or their circumstances. When a boy presents himself for enlistment, provided he is over 18 and he looks as if he were— there is a check in that—quite clearly if he is suitable physically and so forth, there is no reason why he should not be accepted. I have told the Committee how, if there is a real reason on compassionate grounds, he gets out. When the hon. Member talks about obstacles being put in the way, of the boy being threatened or the parents threatened with legal proceedings because of the boy having mis-stated his age, I challenge him to put to the Committee, or to me, a single case in which anything of the sort has taken place. It is not true.

Mr. BECKETT: What I said is within the knowledge of the Committee. I said that I did not suspect hon. Gentlemen opposite or any responsible people. My statement was that the parents were given the impression, and many of the ignorant ones were under the impression, that they were liable to charges being brought against them on account of the boy having made a false statement.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I accept the correction, of course. I understood the hon. Member to say that threats were made either to the lad or to the parents. No one has any authority
to make any such charge. I do not believe that any such threat has been made, and if the hon. Member will give me any single case in which he says that a threat has been made, I will have it-investigated and see that it does not occur again. This proposal was made last year. It is a hardy annual and I hope the Committee will shortly come to decision upon it. I cannot accept it and I do not suppose the Mover expected that I would.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman ignores the essential feature of this proposition. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view and that he would not desire to put any obstacle in the way of the enlistment of a boy. It is a question, however, as to who should have the over-riding decision in determining the career of a youth between the ages of 16 and 18. That is the vital point The right hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest that the boy is the person to decide. If the boy desires to join the Army the right hon. Gentleman, from the War Office point of view, will be satisfied. But, surely, the parent has a right in this matter. Let us assume the case of a boy who has been trained for a trade, or whose education has cost money; who has passed from the primarily to the secondary school and has arrived at the age of 17. He may be a head-strong boy and may be corrected by his parent for some conduct of which the parent disapproves. That boy in a fit of pique or of irresponsibility suddenly decides to join the Army. That may be all right from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite but if one of them objected to his own son doing it he ought to have an over-riding decision in the matter. Quite often a boy because of some little domestic difficulty takes the bit in his teeth and it is an injustice to a parent if his boy is to be allowed to choose a career in that irresponsible way. It is too big a choice for a boy to make and a parent has the right to demand that a son who is not of mature age should be withdrawn from a calling to which the parent objects.
There is another objection. In the course of the last few years there has been great controversy on the fundamental principle of the rightness or
wrongness of military service. I am not going to raise that issue except in a secondary way. I am prepared to grant that there is an age at which a person ought to have perfect freedom to make the decision whether he can or cannot join the Army. I honour the decision of the person who decides for himself to join the Army. It is not for me to interfere with him or sit in judgment on him, but it is a decision which, sooner or later, may involve the further difficult decision as to taking life or not taking life. For a person over the age of 18 we have nothing to say except to leave to him that decision, but I submit that for a boy of 17 to take the very grave decision as to whether he can or cannot at some future time take another fellow creature's life is handing over to a child—for what else is he?—a very grave and serious responsibility indeed. I think, therefore, that on those two grounds, the gravity of the decision the child makes and the overriding right of the parent over a child's decision at that age, the right hon. Gentleman might give a much more favourable consideration to our submission. The third point was this. He said he does not want boys prevented from joining the musicians' side of the Army. Very well. There is no objection to their joining, provided they can get their parents' consent, but suppose a parent objects? It seems to me that the parent should have the final right of deciding till the boy is 1S. After that age, personally, I would be prepared to leave it to the individual, though I still think that age is rather too low, but under 18 I think no boy ought to have the right to take so grave a decision in regard to his future life.

Mr. GARDNER: It is very nice for the Minister to say that no parents are threatened, but when parents approach the recruiting office and the officer tells them they have rendered themselves liable to prosecution, it is open to that construction. I am certain the Minister cannot deny it, because I have had personal experience of it in cases in which I have been interested. One of the theories taken in regard to this position is that the recruiting officers are deceived. It is very hard to deceive an old soldier, and I venture to say that any recruiting officer getting an application from a boy under 18 to join the
Army has got his mind made up at once as to exactly what his age is. Every boy joining the Army has to give two references, and the authorities have to take up those references before the boy is approved. Why cannot the War Office at the same time as they are taking up those references as to his character, get on the telephone to the Registrar-General's office and find out the boy's age? There is no need to see his birth certificate, so far as they are concerned. The fact is that the War Office look at this question from the point of view of getting the boy in. The previous speaker referred to the question of a boy whose education may have been continued to a mature age for the ordinary boy, but there is a still more serious consideration. Some parents make sacrifices and place their boys in the way of making a comfortable livelihood in their after years, but the War Office, in taking up this attitude, are in the position of ruining the chances of those boys, who may be turned down at the age of 25 or 26 and put upon the labour market to join the large number of people who have no suitable employment.
I hope the Minister will give us some promise that he will do something to meet us on these points, and so prevent

the worry and anxiety many parents now suffer, and relieve himself of a considerable amount of correspondence which he has to deal with in cases of this kind.

Mr. PALING: I was not altogether disappointed, from one point of view, to hear the Minister's reply. He said it was not altogether desirable that we should ask a young lad joining the Army to produce a birth certificate. Sometimes it was difficult to obtain, involving a lot of inquiries, and at times inquiries which were not altogether desirable. If that be a good argument in the case of young recruits for the Army, I hope he will communicate his views to other Departments which are so keen on demanding the production of birth certificates in connection with claims for widows' pensions or old age pensions. These certificates are asked for in cases where it is almost impossible to secure them, and people who are in urgent need of the money are kept waiting for months; but when it is a question of a young man joining the Army no certificate is necessary.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 214.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[11.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Rlley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr. John


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey. Joseph
Hirst W. (Bradford, South)
Shleis, Or. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, H6nry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, J.


Cape. Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glbbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oilver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry



Groves, T.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank


Agg-Gardner, Ht. Hon. Sir James T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pennelather, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goft, Sir Park
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Viscountess
Grace, John
Perkins, Coionel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Perring, Sir William George


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Philipson, Mabel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Radford, E A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harland, A.
Remor, J. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blundell. F. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain W.
Hermessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A,


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Burman, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Ma). Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Smithers, Waidron


Chapman, Sir S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clayton, G. C.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kindersley, Major Guv M-
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cope. Major William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Templeton, W. p.


Colt, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leigh, Sir John (Ctapham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Locker- Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Looker, Herbert William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, Lewis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watts, Or. T.


Davies. Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.


Duckworth John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Elliot. Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wise. Sir Fredric


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wolmer, Viscount


Falls. Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Merrlman, F. B.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ford. Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Forestler-Walker, sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Forrest, W.
Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Bowyer.


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 76 of Army Act.)

The following proviso shall be added at the end of section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—

Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian.—[Mr Stephen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 211.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[11.56 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D,
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charies George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hlrst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shtels, Dr. Drummond


Batey. Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rothermthe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, silvertown)
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorns, W. (West Ham, p'lalstow)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glbbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianclly)


Glliett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.



Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Edwards.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abrahan


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Goff, Sir Park


Albery, Irving James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grace, John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Cope, Major William
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Couper, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Astor, Viscountess
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atkinson, C.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bainlel, Lord
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(L(ndsey,Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harland, A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Curzon, captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H,
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hawke, John Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cawson Sir Philip
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bennett, A. J.
Duckworth, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Biundell, F. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
England, Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine.Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)
Holt, Captain H. p.


Brass Captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)


Briscoe, Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Fielden, E. B.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh, S.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burman, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forestier-Walker, Sir L,
Kuntingfield, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forrest, W.
lliffe, Sir Edward M.


Campbell, E T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cayzor, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jacob, A. E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gadle, Lieut.-Cot Anthony
Jephcott, A. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Clayton G. C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Hon. O. F, G. (Westm'eland)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton)
Storry-Deans, R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pennetather, Sir John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lamb, J. Q.
penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Lane Fox, col. Rt. Hon. George H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lister, Cunlifle-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, Sir William George
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Locker-Lampson, Com.O.(Handsw'th)
Philipson, Mabel
Templeton, W. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Lougher, Lewis
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Raine, W.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Ramsden, E.
Warrender. Sir Victor


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Remer. J. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watts, Dr. T.


Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


McLean, Major A.
Ropner, Major L.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Merriman, F. B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W|
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. w.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Skelton, A. N.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wragg, Herbert


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron



Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Captain Martiesson and Captain


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Bowyer.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Wlli'sden,E.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 138 of Army Act.)

In section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to penal stoppages from the ordinary pay of soldiers), at the end of the proviso there shall be added,—
(d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant, penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope I shall not have to appeal to a Tory Government, to a Tory party that poses to the world as very patriotic and as always looking after the interests of the British Empire—and that includes hon. Members who are standing below the Bar—on behalf of the soldier.
If Admirals and Generals were included in this, the benches would be full of the Admirals and Generals. At the moment they are conspicuous by their absence because this only applies to the private soldier, the ordinary "Tommy Atkins." What does it mean? It means that it has been left again to us who are twitted time and time again as having regard to every country but our own. That is how
We are twitted many, many, times. We always deny it, and we are always prepared to prove our contention and denial either on the Floor of the House of Commons or on the public platform in any part of Britain. To-night it has fallen to my lot again on behalf of the Labour party to prove to Britain that the best friend of the soldier in this country is again the Labour party. Time and time again we have defended the Tommy.

The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that the hon. Member gets to that particular point in which he wants to help the private soldier, by a rather less circuitous route.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think I am quite within my right. I am trying to show that this is not the first time we have defended "Tommy Atkins." We did it during the War.

The CHAIRMAN: Has this anything to do with questions of allotment from ordinary pay being deducted, and so on?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely, you should listen and wait until I have finished my sentence. The Minister of Health tonight was very wroth because this side of the House, he thought, did not allow him to finish his sentence, and now I am claiming the same indulgence as any Minister of the Crown. Remember the treatment meted out to me will be meted
out to him on future occasions. [Interruption.] We here are standing tonight to save the soldier who may get into trouble—that soldier who probably is the only support of a widowed mother for whom he makes an allotment. So much is allowed for that mother and that soldier gets into trouble. What we are asking here is that the amount of deductions that are made, the fines that are put on that soldier, should not penalise that poor mother of his. We are anxious to defend soldiers' dependants from the Tory Government—this Tory Government and its supporters, particularly the female section who are always posing as the friend of the soldier. Now they will have a chance to vote for the defence of the soldier's widowed mother against the inroads of the Tory Government.

Captain KING: With all that consideration which the hon. Gentleman has given to this subject, I regret that he has not ascertained that the hon. Member for Lirnchouse (Mr. Attlee) moved the same Amendment in 1925. At that time, the allotment made by a soldier was capable of being estopped for a debt which could not be repaid in two months

or which exceeded £2. After the Debate in 1925, on the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse, the Secretary for State carefully considered the matter and decided that 50 per cent. of the compulsory allotment made by any soldier should be inviolate, no matter what the amount of the debt was. Following the announcement of that Army Order, the hon. Member for Limehouse wrote me a letter on 8th November, 1925, in which he said:
I thank you for your letter of the 6th inst. and for the Army Order enclosed. I am grateful to you for having been able to give careful consideration to the carse of the allotments of soldiers about which I made representations in the Army Debate.

The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that careful consideration of anyhow the male Tories was given to this subject.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to understand that we do not want 50 per cent.; we want the lot.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 195.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)
Hayes, John Henry
Riloy, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Amnion. Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon- Sir John


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhlthe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor. R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhouqhton)
Lee. F.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Glbbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles


Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.
Edwards.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut..Colonel
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor. Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Alexander, Sir Wm (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atkinson, C.


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Albery, Irving James
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bainlel, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon- John
Pennefather, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bennett, A, J.
Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Phillpson. Mabel


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ropner, Major L.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Surman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Butt. Sir Alfred
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Ma). Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W)


Chapman, Sir S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
IIiffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E, W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith.R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carlnaton, Neville W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Jephcott. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Knox, sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsay,Galnsbro)
Lane Fox, col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson,Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Duckworth, John
Lougher, Lewis
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld


Eden. Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


England, Colonel A.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Klngston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Falle, Sir Bertram G
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Finburgh, S.
Margesson. Captain D.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Forrest, W.
Merriman. F. B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wragg, Herbert


Gower, Sir Robert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

Schedule and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.

Mr. Gosling, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Lord Apsley, and Mr. Tinne nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Mercantile Marine Memorial Bill.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain FitzRoy) adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after twelve o'clock.